User talk:Srnec/Archive, 10 December 2005–8 January 2008
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 9 January–20 July 2008
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 21 July 2008–23 February 2009
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 24 February 2009–14 August 2009
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 August 2009–14 June 2010
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 June 2010–17 May 2011
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 18 May 2011–15 May 2013
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 16 May 2013–14 March 2014
- 1 Catalan culture Challenge
- 2 Disambiguation link notification for March 21
- 3 We've gotten off on the wrong foot
- 4 The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
- 5 March 2014
- 6 Nomination for deletion of Template:French intervention in Mexico infobox
- 7 Disambiguation link notification for March 30
- 8 Median lethal dose
- 9 Disambiguation link notification for April 6
- 10 Disambiguation link notification for April 13
- 11 French Somaliland in WWII
- 12 Titles in titles of articles
Catalan culture Challenge
Hello! I've seen that you are one of the main editors of the Abbot Oliba article and I just want to inform you that the article is featured at the the Catalan Culture Challenge, a Wikipedia editing contest in which victory will go to those who start and improve the greatest number of articles about 50 key figures of Catalan culture. It goes from March 16 to April 15. You can take part by creating or expanding articles on these people in your native language (or any other one you speak). It would be lovely to have you on board. :-) Amical Wikimedia --Kippelboy (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gales of Dampierre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dampierre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
We've gotten off on the wrong foot
I think we have gotten off on the wrong foot. You said this on the history page of the "Italian governorate of Montenegro" article: "here's how it's done - and since you have read the talk page, your question about sources is disingenuous". Why are you engaging in such attacks against me? I said that multiple claims in the article need sources, I thought that was fine considering that the page has few sources. No I have not read the entirety of the talk page. The issue is that the claims made in the article need references to support them.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- A tag atop the article says, "This article needs additional citations for verification." So why does it need "citation needed" tags throughout? It has one big "citations needed" tag at the top.
- In your first edit summary, you wrote, "There are no citations for many of assertions made here. From the talk page, it appears that the users agreed to use this name as some kind of compromise - that does not make it the legal name of this entity. This is not acceptable." Since you are aware of the recent talk page discussion about the title, it is disingenuous to ask in a later edit summary, "What sources say that it was named as shown?"—because the sources were presented on the talk page. Should they be added to the article, and the issue of naming cleard up? Absolutely, but the tag at the top already does the job of a million little tags. And since you read the talk page, you could add the sources used yourself if you were motivated. The sources used in the previous version of the article do not show that "Independent State of Montenegro" was the name of Montenegro under Italian rule. More sources are needed on the issue of naming, but since Montenegro was undoubtedly governed by Italy and was not an independent state, the current title is best. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Troupes coloniales may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- empire. This force played a substantial role in the conquest of the empire, in [[World War I]], [[[World War II]], the [[First Indochina War]] and the [[Algerian War]].
Template:French intervention in Mexico infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Austro-Hungarian campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
Median lethal dose
My apologies, I only meant to take out the "commonly due to allergic reactions" in regards to cases of rapid death time (20-30 mins). This was added by a disruptive IP editor before I had the article protected. I've never read a case in which a mamba victim died due to allergic reaction. In anycase, I added the median lethal dose link back into the lead. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 21:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rodrigo Fernández de Castro, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Battle of Uclés, Ávila and Almonacid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aurunca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Festus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
French Somaliland in WWII
Really good job with the re-write at French Somaliland in World War II! I hope you don't mind, but I have tweaked the title to "in" rather than your original "during" to comply with the general trend in similar articles (see the template at the bottom). All the best! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I belatedly saw this message after leaving a message on the talk page. Personally, I prefer "during" for the reasons I state there. But thank you! There is still information to add, if I can track it down in reliable sources. There is very little I can find about the "air war" during June 1940 that I believe occurred. Srnec (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Titles in titles of articles
Hello Srnec, I've busy in other projects but before that, and whenever I can, I've been moving some of the articles on Portuguese royals/nobles when the title of the article per se is something like, Infante SoandSo, count of... . I think we should have some clear guidelines and not just discussions in a wikiproject. All of these I think should be "standardized". I would opt for dates after the name whenever possible John of Portugal (1300-1350), but if these dates are not confirmed, perhaps something like, John of Portugal, Count of Viseu (I'm inventing the names right now). There is so much confusion with all of these Portuguese nobles and trying to find them is quite difficult. I would definitely delete the nobility/royal titles from the title of the article. What do you think? Regards, --Maragm (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would also prefer dates, but there seems to be a consensus against them (except where there is no other option). If you move enough articles to dates, you can expect pushback. In this case, however, there might be an argument that dates are the least confusing option. Titles preceding the name (like Infante) should definitely go, but titles (like Count of Viseu) that come after the name, separated by a comma or in parentheses, are acceptable. If there were more than one "John of Portugal, Count of Viseu", then dates would be preferrable or, if there is some other distinguishing mark, then perhaps a parenthetical disambiguator like "John of Portugal (historian)"—obviously, I'm making this up. Srnec (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll go over the articles when I have free time and move as per your indications, putting the dates as a last resource. The other thing I forgot to mention is prince/ess vs. infante/a. Most, if not all sources on Spanish/Portuguese royals, call them infantes and I see that some of the Portuguese royals have been called prince/ess. I'm not sure about the more modern ones, but I think all those from the Middle Ages should be called infantes, particularly in the title of the article. --Maragm (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)