User talk:Srnec/Archive, 29 March 2016–3 March 2018

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 March 2014–28 March 2016

User:Srnec/DYK

Proposed deletion of March law[edit]

The article March law has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All but one of the links on this disambiguation page are red.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Publilius Optatianus Porfirius, please?[edit]

The article is currently a tub but I tagged it with several relevant templates and transferred text from the Italian version of the article, which is difficult to figure out. Could you help me fix this article up to match the quality of the other languages please?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I'm afraid this is out of my area and I can't be much help. Srnec (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in infoboxes[edit]

I opened a thread at the village pump that might interest you and you might want to give your opinion Regards, --Maragm (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Jar[edit]

This order was founded in early-11th century, after lost its function and activity for a long time, and refounded as "Order of the Jar and the Griffin" in the 14th century (also in Spain), so cormfirm almost all the medieval, early.modern and reaffirm modern sources in Basque, Catalan or Castilian languages; and shields of several old Navarran towns in Northern Spain that have include the badge.--Vvven (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fulcuich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortagne. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Squillace[edit]

Hello Srnec, I've been trying to fix the article, adding references and removing all the rubbish and the supposed current heirs, etc. Notice that there is an article in the German wiki (see link I added) and apparently, the title existed before the Borgias but I don't know German. Have you any other info on this title? For now, I'll leave it as it is and keep my fingers crossed hoping that no more unintelligible BS is added. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1383–85 Portuguese crisis[edit]

Hey man, i was wondering if that is the better appropriate name for it. FrigidSoil (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Interregum crisis" is awkward because (a) "interregnum" isn't an adjective and (b) if the period 1383–85 was an interregnum, why do we also need to call it a crisis? One or the other is better than both. Srnec (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Regents articles[edit]

Thanks for your changes to the articles relating to these bands. I am not sure that what you have done fully reflects the position. All three bands are called 'The' Regents. But of the three articles, only one now has 'The' in the title of the article. And I do not understand why the doo-wop band alone lays claim to an article title with no brackets. Why is this? I would have thought that the way the articles about the two bands called 'The Beat' handles this better, giving no precedence to either band. Would appreciate your responses on these points. Thanks, Peteinterpol (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps The Regents should be moved. I don't know enough about how the bands are referred to. After all, it's The Beatles, not Beatles. You could propose a move and see what people think. I'd suggest Regents (doo-wop band). —Srnec (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you indicate about 'the' Beatles, it appears on checking that the doo-wop band and the UK band are known as 'the' Regents. The US punk band is not. So I note your suggestion for 'Regents (doo-wop band)', but would slightly amend this to add a 'The'. I would suggest that that article about the UK band should also have a 'The' added. Peteinterpol (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned that as you have left it, if you search for 'Regents' meaning one of the three bands, you end up on the 'Regent' page. I think it someone puts in the plural they are likely to be seeking a band. That was my reason for suggesting a disambiguation page for the bands rather than the redirect you have restored. Peteinterpol (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Regents (disambiguation). Also, there are a lot of links to "The Regents" that should be fixed to point to the doo-wop page so that the base title can be redirected to the dab page. Srnec (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of infobox[edit]

Hi Smec- I'm curious to know why you deleted the infobox on Alphonso, Earl of Chester. Do we not use them on small articles? I'll watch here. Eric talk 11:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are neither required nor forbidden on any articles. See WP:INFOBOX. Whether they are useful is decided on a case by case basis. I removed it in this case because it competes with the article. A short article does not need a point-by-point summary. The interested reader can just read the article. The infobox and the article sat literally right beside each other presenting the same information: one in sentences like an encyclopedia and one in fields like a database. Srnec (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. Eric talk 11:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

order of the holm oak/ orden de la encina[edit]

ok, i will make the article with its respective references, with that be difficult you can refuse that curious part of history, buddy--Vvven (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Kingdom of Sobrarbe and this website. This is a legend, not history. Feel free to create the article—but you must present the Order of the Oak accurately, that is, as a legend with no basis in historical fact. Srnec (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blasco II d'Alagona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alagón. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January to March 2016 Quarterly Article Reviews[edit]

 Military history service award 
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 1 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period January to March 2016. Thank you for your efforts! Anotherclown (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Téllez[edit]

When you have a chance, could you take a look at Gonzalo Téllez which I translated from es.wiki? Also, look at Lantaron and the move made in January 2013. I will continue to add an accent on the "o". Regards, --Maragm (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the Lantaron article ought to be moved. Nobody who is familiar with the Basque spelling is unfamiliar with the Spanish, but many readers may wonder why Lantarón has dropped its accent.
I made some tweaks to Gonzalo Téllez. It's hard to tell what from the diff because I reordered a few paragraphs at the start. It is probably long enough to have more than one section. Srnec (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better now. Even though I haven't found a secondary source mentioning his descendants, I think, based on some charters, that he probably did, at least Gutier, Assur and Tello, and going overboard in hypothezising, he could be an ancestor of Tello Pérez de Meneses. The toponymic Meneses derives from the settlers who came from Valle de Mena in Álava. I'll see if I can come up with titles for the sections. Could you take care of Lantarón? I'm not sure how to go about reverting a move. --Maragm (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created two sections, but somehow, it doesn't seem right and perhaps needs more shifting around, especially because of the chronology.--Maragm (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a quick translation of the Spanish Wiki for Fernando Díaz (count in Lantarón and Cerezo), just to remove the red link. I'll re-read Gonzalo Téllez and see if there's a better structure. Sometimes no sections is better when a figure's biography is so sketchy. Srnec (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I just removed the children...probably you read it too fast! --Maragm (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Thank you, Srnec (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PD, after I add Carriedo Tejedo's hypothesis on Muniadona, Fernán Glz's mother, in the article in es.wiki, I'm going to translate Munio Núñez. I see that in Counts of Castile he is called Munio Núñez de Castrogeriz. I have him as just Munio Núñez in es.wiki. Which name do you think would be most appropriate? (Another option, Munio Núñez, Count of Castile) Let me know since I can probably do it today. --Maragm (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like simple Munio Núñez, personally. It can always be moved in the future if we have several others of the same name. Srnec (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Going over the articles here (and in es.wiki) on Castile, I see that in both, they are an absolute mess, lacking references and with pretty serious errors. We have Kingdom of Castile which perhaps should just be on the Kingdom itself (as of Sancho II of Castile) with a summary on the County of Castile which, in turn, should have its own article. Within the current Kingdom of Castile article, we have a section on the 12th-Century link between Christianity and Islam which doesn't really seem to fit in, at least as it is now. Then we have the section on Castile and León where it has been suggested that Crown of Castile should be merged into the article. If you ever want to tackle this, let me know and we can coordinate since I feel the subject is too complex to handle alone. I have sources in Spanish which could complement sources in English. For now, I'm going to try to work on the individual counts. --Maragm (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Officers of the County of Edessa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chamberlain and Chancery. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortún Garcés Cajal[edit]

Re the year of his death, the article pasted below, pp. 16-17, quotes a charter dated 1146 the year on which he died:

  • Cabanes Pecourt, María de los Desamparados (1995). "Datas históricas en la documentación de Veruela del siglo XII" (PDF). Aragón en la Edad Media (in Spanish) (12): 13–28. ISSN 0213-2486. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Regards,--Maragm (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was going through some unsorted files in a folder on my computer the other day and I found this PDF. I couldn't figure out why I'd downloaded a paper about Veruela. Now I think I know. Srnec (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annals of Vendôme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exemplar. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Verden[edit]

Hi Srnec, there is an important discussion about this article's bias to which you may wish to contribute. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter II of Sicily, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Termini. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Langdon Down, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Malay and Caucasian. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerold of Geneva[edit]

Hi. I read your action here, but its wrong. Gerold are only the same count of Geneva, Gerold I doesn't exist and Gerold II was a wrong translation. You can see on the fr:Wr at the article Gérold de Genève with all the references. Cdt. --B-noa (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krivošije rebellion[edit]

What's wrong with "Krivošije rebellion"?--Zoupan 23:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was not the only rebellion ever in Krivošije, so including the date is important. Srnec (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bretislav[edit]

I have made a multi-request. I think your opposal to the former request was unconstructive. We would simply have moved the other two as uncontroversial.--Zoupan 01:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guyenne[edit]

Hi, I see you undid my revision to Guyenne in which I had replaced the main map with another, what I felt was more visually simple, map of the area. I am wondering if we might engage in the conversation over this. I came to the article while reading a book on the 100 Years War, looked at the map, and couldn't even tell in which part of France it was located. I was concerned that the [now current] map in the article was overrun with so many details that the content rendered the map unusable except perhaps for specialists— and Wikipedia readers are by and large not specialists. Is there a compromise map we might agree upon? Thoughts? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does one of the below satisfy you? It is important that Guyenne be clearly a part of France, since it always was. Srnec (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guyenne et Gascogne in 1771
    Guyenne et Gascogne in 1771
  • Late 15th-century France
    Late 15th-century France
  • France in 1477
    France in 1477
The third image seems to fit the bill! No mistaking where it is located in that one. Would you care to make the proposed edit? KDS4444 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-French War (1778–83)[edit]

The article was created and heavily edited by various socks, all run by one sockmaster. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vinukin. Feel free to merge, redirect, etc. I only didn't redirect it because there were some legitimate edits, but I did revert back to those. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petrus Ferrandi Hispanus - "Biography" section title reverted[edit]

Greetings, The article Petrus Ferrandi Hispanus is missing a lead section. I added the "Biography" section in order to create this lead section. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. There are many thousands of bio articles with this exact same section title, so I do not see any reason for removing. Please explain. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has an introductory paragraph ("lead"). Since it is a biographical article, subsuming all the text under a heading with that title does not help the reader identify the material or navigate the article. Since it is a short article and there is nothing to divide, there is no need for headings yet. Paragraph breaks suffice for short articles. Once expanded sufficiently, then section headings are useful to help the reader navigate and find the material they are looking for. As it stands, in this article a bio heading serves no purpose. Srnec (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts?[edit]

I have found no mention of an Ida, daughter of Eustace and Ida of Boulogne, in any reliable sources. Do you know of any information concerning a possible daughter? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keats-Rohan (Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. (1999). Domesday People: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents, 1066–1166: Domesday Book. Ipswich, UK: Boydell Press. pp. 196–197. ISBN 0-85115-722-X.) says that Eustace had an unnamed daughter who married Conan, count of Montaigu. K-R also has "was this the Matilda who was his tenant in Dorset?" after mentioning the unnamed daughter. drop me an email and I can send you a scan of the relevant pages. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Alan V. Murray, "The Army of Godfrey of Bouillon, 1096–1099: Structure and Dynamics of a Contingent on the First Crusade", Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, 70, 2 (1992), pp. 301–29, at pp. 304–05, flatly denies any basis in fact to Orderic Vitalis' claim that Cono was married to a sister of Godfrey of Bouillon. He cites a document that gives Cono's wife's paternity. Her name was Ida. I think the page should probably mention that the historical Ida, wife of Cono, has been identified as a daughter of Eustace, first by Orderic and then by historains following him, while also mentioning that there is contradictory evidence for a different paternity. I don't really think we need to choose between Keats-Rohan and Murray. Just make it clear that the historical person in question was the wife of Cono named Ida, paternity disputed.
As an aside, someone just put up a Counts of Montaigu article that needs a lot of work. Cono also needs an article, which I may get to work on. Srnec (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So we have sources that say a daughter of Eustace was married to Conon, but none stating she was the daughter of Ida of Boulogne, Eustace's 2nd wife? Should we take any notice that mention of his daughter is not included with the listing of children with his wife Ida, but in the following sentence(Keats-Rohan, 196)? Or am I reading too much into this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that we have one source (the chronicle of the abbey of Saint-Hubert) that says Cono's wife Ida was a daughter of Lambert the Old and another (Orderic Vitalis) that says she was a sister of Godfrey of Bouillon (and so a daughter of Eustace and Ida). The person that certainly existed is Cono's wife Ida. The question is whose daughter she is. According to Murray, there is no source that mentions a daughter of Eustace and Ida explicitly, so he thinks the chronicle is more reliable than Orderic, especially since Lambert the Old was buried at Saint-Hubert. Keats-Rohan apparently follows Orderic, perhaps because the naming makes sense, but that's just a guess. The uncertainty is over the paternity of Cono's only known wife, Ida. Srnec (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Counts of Montaigu--

I'm just finishing Wolters' book of on the Counts of Duras and can see that Gilles brother Conon was indeed Count of Montaigu. Is it Cono or Conon? If Conon, should there be I and II to distinguish him from his great-grandfather?

Dr. Grampinator (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand I of Leon[edit]

Here are some sources to nicknames that had: "the Great" and "the Magno": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. On the contrary, I find no source that says that these nicknames are incorrect; With respect to the image you deleted from the article. here next are 26 sources, reliable or not that directly relate this with the person of Ferdinand I of Leon, here are the next: [8]. So i will revert some action yours without find out on it--Vvven (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are Spanish. "Magno" is not an English word. Nobody is saying that he is not called el Magno, but in English he is only called "the Great".
As to the image, the other image is better because it is contemporary. The image you prefer is later. Srnec (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also is contemporary. This image is medieval from around the same centuries in which he lived, although I have not found a source that says the exact date, it is clear that this is a medieval manuscript apart sources and Spanish wikipedia are clear ensures that comes from a book preserved in the Cathedral of Leon, centre of his kingdom, and books and manuscripts that are kept in the Spanish cathedrals are medieval contemporaries or very important, paintings of other times(f.e. early modern) not contemporaries are preserved in Spain into museums--Vvven (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as it is doubtful that was contemporary, although also quite feasible since other manuscripts that were made during the reign of león, followed the same line, and have a very similar quality, I will reverse the position of the images in the article, the image you want to leave the put up, the king I leave I want to leave where was that image--Vvven (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so much time you takes to respond my comments I think you have no many objections--Vvven (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snerc, as you can see from the wise-ass comments he left in my talk page, he intends to continue to translate from es.wiki, expecting others to do the dirty work afterwards. I have no intention of doing so and I think the best thing is to get an admin involved by reporting his conduct. His English is atrocious and, if anything, I can do the translations myself, if necessary, but I'm not willing to correct his work. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On Jule 2016 my English skills improve a 99 % of its perfection. I know you don't care about but. Now i can say I'm comeback ;). Have a nice afternoon, hang out my friend you deserve :)--Vvven (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gothelo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Godfrey. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 17[edit]

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.

Conon, Count of Montaigu
added links pointing to Conrad and Conan
Pedro Suárez de Deza (died 1206)
added a link pointing to Bishop of Zamora

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Pátria in Timor 1912.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sancho, Count of Provence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beaucaire. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of colonial governors of the Congo Free State and Belgian Congo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maurice Lippens and Pierre Ryckmans. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 22[edit]

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.

Carloman of Bavaria
added a link pointing to Piece
Carolingian Empire
added a link pointing to Avars

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old unreferenced articles[edit]

I've been working on clearing some of the pages that have been waiting the longest for references. A few of them were ones you created. Some examples are Jobert of Syria, Centule V, Viscount of Béarn, Guiscarda, Viscountess of Béarn, Bernard of Gothia, Bernard, Count of Poitiers, Odo of Fézensac, and Gaston III, Viscount of Béarn.

They are good articles, and created back in the day when references weren't expected, but it would be nice to add some refs. Do you happen to remember what sources you used originally? - SimonP (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and see if I can add some refs or if I can remember what I was working from back then. Srnec (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duchy of Normandy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Longsword. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Versum de Mediolano civitate[edit]

Hi Srnec! While working on medieval urban eulogies, I managed to create a duplicate of your article Versum de Mediolano civitate under the title Laudes Mediolanensis Civitatis. By the time I realised my error, mine was the longer article. I ended up moving the article to Laudes Mediolanensis Civitatis, which I initially thought was the more common title, doing a history merge, and fusing the two texts. I'm now having second thoughts on which title is more common. If you'd prefer, now the histories are merged, I think I can move it back to the original title without losing anything. (I've never done a history merge before!) Let me know what you think. Thanks for creating this interesting article, and sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is fine. I'd decapitalise civitatis, but that's a personal preference. Nice work. Srnec (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll move it to the lowercase civitatis and fix all the double (treble) redirects. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Czechoslovak government-in-exile[edit]

Hi Srnec. I seem to remember you've commented on a similar issue in the past at the Yugoslav government page, but a user wants to get a Former country infobox added to the article at the Czechoslovak government-in-exile. I wondered if you'd be kind enough to comment in that discussion? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duchy of Merania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyrol. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Mafalda of Portugal[edit]

Hello Srnec, I just fixed Afonso I of Portugal (descendants), adding as many references as I could. We have Mafalda of Portugal (1149–1160). I just edited that article and referenced that she was born in 1153 and did not die until sometime after 1162. Since we have another Mafalda of Portugal, how do you suggest we baptize this one, Afonso Henriques's daughter? We'll be finding this problem with other Portuguese royals whose articles do not have a single ref. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably opt for Mafalda (daughter of Afonso Henriques), but use "Mafalda of Portugal" or "Afonso I of Portugal" if you prefer. Another option is Mafalda of Portugal (born 1153), but a lot of folks around here dislike dates in bio titles. (Obviously not this article's creator, though.) —Srnec (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just did, opted for your first suggestion. --Maragm (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sancha Raimúndez[edit]

Hello Srnec, I'm trying to fix Sancha Raimúndez which was translated from es.wiki. I think that the user who wrote the Spanish version overdid it with the burial part, pretty confusing and maybe requires some pruning. I wanted to add that she raised Urraca Rodríguez, daughter of Count Rodrigo González de Lara. I have a quote from her will (Cathedral of Segovia): Et Urraca filie comitis Roderici quam ego creavi mando Monasterio de Covasrubia cum hereditate... She also probably raised Ponce de Minerva. I don't have Barton's The Aristocracy... and see that in the article on count Rodrigo, (ref 14, Bartón pp. 48-49, no preview of these paegs in Googlebooks) it mentions that this was when she was orphaned. Do you know if Barton mentions the quote above? If so,then I could use it citing a secondary source. Thanks, --Maragm (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barton, pp. 48–49: "Urraca Rodríguez, the orphaned daughter of Count Rodrigo González de Lara and the Infanta Sancha Alfonso, was raised in the household of the Infanta Sancha Raimúndez, the sister of Alfonso VII." His citation is to the Documentación medieval de la catedral de Segovia, pp. 107–08.
Barton's article "Two Catalan Magnates in the Courts of the Kings of León-Castile" also mentions Urraca's being raised at Sancha's court, quoting the same charter. Do you have access to it? The section "Marriage to Estefanía Ramírez" at Ponce de Minerva has a discussion of this based mainly on Barton. Srnec (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Yes, I have "Two Catalan Magnates..." will check it now. I wrote the article on Ponce de Minerva and on Estefania at es.wiki. Re Argavallones, the donation by Sancha to Estefanía which Barton doubts or thinks the charter is fraudulent, I added another source, Serrano, which I think is pretty reliable (see note a) in Ponce at es.wiki). --Maragm (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of 'Uberto Lanfranchi'[edit]

Dear Srnec, Thanks for watching edits. With regard to your reversion of my adding the tag 'refimprove', I could perhaps have done exactly as you suggest, add 'citation needed' in-line tags. But I realized that that would require four or five such tags, and I did not want to violate guidelines on overtagging with the same tag multiple times in a very short article. I really think you should revert your reversion. I see that you mention 3 whole references from two sources, but the refs. were not sufficiently precise as to the material on his work in Pisa to satisfy. The details of his cardinalate are also unreferenced. I know they could be referenced, but they are not. --Vicedomino (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there material in the article you think is wrong? Srnec (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Germany[edit]

Hi Srnec. Fair points. I've added a section on the talk page. It would be good if we can find an accommodation that all parties can live with and I hope this kick starts editors into having another go at that. I actually think much of the article is fine, and that therefore there is way to resolve this, at least for the present. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julian[edit]

Smerc sorry for reverting you without an edit summary. It is true that there is a strong case for Count Julian never having existed but this cannot be established as fact. There is also a case that he did exist and a significant portion of historiography considers him an actual historical figure. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to completely rewrite the article in the coming days and add citations. Indeed, it is shocking how many Spanish authors still treat Julian as historical. Srnec (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Think that you could say the same thing about Jesus Christ. There is no way of confirming or denying that he existed. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that comparison is ridiculous. In the case of Jesus, we have multiple source written within 50 years of his death. They are in basic agreement as to who Jesus was (Jewish apocalyptic teacher), what he did and what happened to him (crucified by Rome). Hostile and friendly sources (e.g., Tacitus and Paul), in fact, are agreed.
In the case of Julian, there is no evidence of any source that mentions him being written before the mid-ninth century (i.e., 150 years later) or of even being based on a written source earlier than that. The source closest in time (written less than 50 years after his death) does not mention him. Moreover, the sources do not agree very closely on who he was. Was he a governor or a merchant? A Visigothic official, a Roman or a Berber? The story of his daughter is accepted by almost nobody, but the story of the ships is still considered likely by some historians. These do not agree about who he was any more than do the Arabic primary sources. Some think he was historical but that "Julian" was not his name but his title. Some equate him with an Urbanus from the chronicle of 754, although this figure is not recorded as doing the things later sources credit to Julian. So if Julian is historical, we know nothing about him beyond perhaps that he helped the Arabs in some way.
Anyway, I have tracked down a number of sources for Julian (Gozalbes Cravioto, Martínez Díez, etc.). Is there any source on his historicity that you would point me to? Srnec (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion in the talk page and added a link.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip III of Navarre[edit]

Hi. You expanded the article about Philip III of Navarre ten years ago, only to have a majority of that information removed without explanation by an anonymous editor in 2010. Unfortunately, nobody reacted. What remains of that expansion now is two sentences. I expanded the article recently with the aim of nominating it for DYK, but I cannot find sources for the information you added. Can you tell me what sources you used in your expansion? DYK rules demand that all paragraphs have an inline citation. Surtsicna (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago... I appear to have copied the info from the French Wikipedia. I believe it is accurate, so I will try to dig up some corroboration. Srnec (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see you beat me to Sumption. I notice that you have a García footnote, but nothing in the bibliography. Srnec (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Srnec. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Georg Achleitner has been accepted[edit]

Georg Achleitner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Smmurphy(Talk) 17:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Philip III of Navarre[edit]

On 7 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Philip III of Navarre, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite his subjects' reluctance to accept him as king, Philip III of Navarre proved to be an effective and successful ruler? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Philip III of Navarre. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Philip III of Navarre), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strasbourg Bishops' War is Factually Inaccurate[edit]

Greetings. During the process of rewriting Strasbourg Bishops' War, I have found that the article contains factually inaccurate information. Namely that the citation (Wilson 2009, pp. 210–11) clearly states that Charles III, Duke of Lorraine also held the title "Bishop of Metz" while Charles of Lorraine (bishop of Metz and Strasbourg) never existed.--Catlemur (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection Encyclopædia Britannica states that there was in fact another Charles. Now I am confused.--Catlemur (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See fr:Charles de Lorraine (1567-1607). The bishop was not Duke Charles III. I can only assume that Wilson made an error or else that the cardinal-bishop was entitled to be called a "duke" even though he was not a ruler (as all later male Habsburgs were titled archdukes of Austria whether they ruled the archduchy or not). Charles—the cardinal, not his father—frequently acted as regent when Charles III was away. Perhaps for this reason he was called duke (acting duke)? Monter is explicit that the bishop was "Charles III's second son". May I ask why you are "rewriting" the article? Srnec (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, Wilson is probably mistaken. Sorry about the accusation. Rewriting would be an exaggeration, I am going to expand it slightly and add an infobox, since the sources I have acquired are not as detailed as I have anticipated. Cheers.--Catlemur (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Medieval maps[edit]

Hello, Srnec. You have new messages at Alphathon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yugo govt-in-exile[edit]

I agree with your removal of the tables, but am struggling with how to reduce the background without removing key information that is necessary to understand the machinations that occurred during the war, especially the friction between the Serb, Croat and Slovene members of the government. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can have a go at a more robust trimming. How much of the sections "Background" and "Lead-up to invasion" are duplicated from other articles? Is there any information in those sections that you added new or is it all duplicated? The key is to single out the point that needs to be made and make only it. There is no need to quote Tomasevich nor to describe Hitler's feel of the atmosphere at a banquet. (Those are things I would cut, for example.) These details are fine at the main articles, but they make this article top-heavy. Srnec (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be grateful if you had a go at cutting it down. It needs a significant background, but I agree it is too much at present, with much of it borrowed from the coup article, as you can see. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saturnalia![edit]

Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Enjoy your holidays, and good luck if you decide to run for admin. Srnec (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays...[edit]

 Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Gerard David, London) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for South-West Africa[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of South-West Africa. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. André Kritzinger (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for German South-West Africa[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of German South-West Africa. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. André Kritzinger (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon![edit]

 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Article rescue barnstar[edit]

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For your excellent work saving Raoul III of Valois. I'm always glad when I am proven wrong at AfD, especially when it leads to the expansion of an article that will be a credit to the encyclopedia. Thank you for your work! TonyBallioni (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 23:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.


Take the survey now!


You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Italian invasion[edit]

Hi, I live there, there is no fort in Bramans in the area specified, it is probably a good faith error, since the commune limit is very close. Sollieres was famous for the fortifications built around bellecombe and the Sollieres pass. This was the sector the most protected on the French side in altitude (above 2500m) especially around the mont Froid defense line (2820m). The Sollieres pass was paving the way to the maurienne valley. On the map, you can see that the main fortifications are being located around Bellecombe which is in Sollieres. All the Italian invasion coming though the commune of bramans had to go through this area, since the valleys on Savine, Etache and Clapier were not used during the battle. But if you want to keep an incorrect information, I won't waste anytime arguing, espceally that since 2017 all the 5 communes in haute maurienne merged into one named Val Cenis. --Gabriel HM (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I assume the source may have meant the forts covering the approaches to Bessans, Lanslebourg and Bramans. If the actual fort is at Sollières, then the new wording is fine with me. Srnec (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of 'Philip of Aragon'[edit]

Your reversion was incorrect. There was indeed one source, an Italian encyclopedia article, but there were no in-line references to any of the statements. Likewise, in the Wikipedia article, there were no in-line references. Nothing in the article could be checked against the encyclopedia article. The article is therefore unreferenced. --Vicedomino (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It cited an online encyclopedia. It is easily checked and therefore referenced. Srnec (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castile/Castella[edit]

I doubt Rodrigo Velázquez's domain were located in Castile, but in "Castella", one of the territorial demarcations ("comisso", "comitatus", etc.) of Galicia. If you read medieval galician documents, some of them refer to counts or "tenentes" of "Castella de Bubal". Even there's a charter from 899 which refers to "Odoarius comes Aucae et Castellae" among a list of galician counts. In fact, there's a village called Sandulces in the province of Ourense. The region of "Castella" could be around Ourense city, between the counties of Monterroso, Deza, Toroño and Limia.

Sorry for my bad english, I'm galician. Vímara Peres (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are probably correct. The cited charter is from the Tumbo de Celanova, so unlikely to refer to Castile. Srnec (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary image for Peter III of Aragon's infobox. Not a bad quality croat, PLEASE![edit]

Hi, I see you have reverted the contemporary image I included on Peter III's infobox to the older croat version. The image I had included is taken from a non-Catalan contemporaneous source. The Nuova Cronica was written by Giovanni Villani, an Italian banker, official, diplomat and chronicler from the Republic of Florence. Giovanni Villani himself in the 36th chapter of Book 8, states that the idea of writing the Cronica came to him during the jubilee of Rome in 1300, and so he wrote: "... thus in the year 1300, on my return from Rome, I began to compile this book in the name of God and the blessed John the Baptist and in honor of our city of Florence." I am aware of the discussion on the talkpage, and I have respected the opinion of the majority. Actually counting the users' opinions, more users prefer contemporary images 3 or 4 (I had inserted one of those, both from the Italian Nuova Cronica written by Villani). (Users that prefer contemporary images 3 or 4: EeuHP, HChc2009, Tarc, myself, and even Ealdgyth, who seems to be discussing between the croat and a 1600's portrait, aparently ignoring images 3 and 4, says ... Stick with contemporary or near contemporary - or if lacking such, something that is clear to the reader that it's not pretending to be something it isn't - a realistic portrait. The image I inserted is, as it should be in any enciclopedia, a contemporary image of the king (Villani started writing the chronicle just 15 years after Peter's death, so obviously they had been contemporary and had lived both at the same time). Enciclopedic policies demand contemporary sources, and that is what has been done. The initial discussion between Maragm and PaulB are not aware of those images, and only discuss between two other sources: the croat or the 17th century portrait. Of course, in that case I would also think the croat to be a better option. Paul B doesn't seem to be aware of the contemporary Villani's chronicle images of the king neither. Maragm hasn't shown up since he started the discussion defending the croat against the 17th century portrait (not mentioning images 3 or 4 from the Cronica). I think the 17th century portrait is now out of the best enciclopedic possibilities, and I agree it should be discarted as an option for the infobox image. Please, give me a reason why a contemporary portrait shouldn't prevail? Why do you prefer a bad quality croat image, with an unclear image of the person? (as Paul B agrees (quote) "In fact it's a crude imitation of late Roman coin types,..."). Consensus has been reached on the talk page. Respect. Ethra2016 (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2017[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Christianity Barnstar
Dear Jwslubbock, I award you The Christianity Barnstar for all your hard work in WikiProject Christianity-related articles, especially your recent creation of Hoger (abbot). Keep up the good work! Your efforts are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 17:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hoger (abbot), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western music. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amaury IV of Évreux, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sotteville. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematician?[edit]

I noticed you edited the article on the Hausdorff paradox. Are you by any chance a fellow mathematician?

Dr. Grampinator (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Grampinator: No, I'm not a mathematician. My educational background is chemistry. Srnec (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Rangoon riots (1930) page[edit]

Hello, Srnec, you recently reverted an edit I made to the "Rangoon riots (1930)." I changed it to simply "Rangoon riots" because no other such riots in Rangoon pages on Wikipedia. You stated that this is "false." Can you link me to another Rangoon riot that has a Wikipedia page? I couldn't find one. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one yet, but there could be in the future. It was my intention to create an article on the Rangoon riots of 1938, although I never did. I may yet get to it. Note that your edit summary said "there are no other Rangoon riots that this could be confused with", which is what was false. Srnec (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: Yes, by "there are no other Rangoon riots that this could be confused with" I meant that there were no "other Rangoon riots (with Wikipedia pages) that this could be confused with." And that's true. It feels unnecessary to add the year to the title when it's the only Rangoon riot with a wikipedia page. However, if you are planning on make a page for the 1938 riots, it makes sense to add the year. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 26[edit]

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.

Geoffrey IV of Joinville
added a link pointing to Sailly
Geoffrey V of Joinville
added a link pointing to Sailly
Leopold von Ranke
added a link pointing to Bowness

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my contributions to diocesan pages[edit]

You placed the following on my talk page:

I notice you are putting a lot of information on individual bishops in footnotes in the diocese articles. Bishops are basically notable by definition. You could create articles.
  1. "a lot" is an elastic term" and it is ambiguous. Do you mean that I am doing it too frequently, or do you mean that I am doing it in too much detail?
  2. I could create articles, but I don't, due to a lack of information about the bishop, unless there is some hope that they will become more than stubs. I judge this as I collect the information and check it. There is no point, in my view, in sending the reader to an article that has little in it. And that, regrettably, is the situation with a large number of articles on bishops.
  3. I do not approve of the business of turning every Catholic name into a separate article and populating it with material taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic-hierarchy.org.
  4. I disagree vehemently with you that 'bishops are basically notable by definition'. Especially in the first millennium they are little more than names. This is not to say that many bishops are not notable; they are. The question is whether there is enough information about them to warrant a separate article.
  5. The information I post on the diocese pages is information that will help the reader understand the nature and activity of the diocese. A bishop's origin, his previous jobs, his patrons, is all highly relevant to the diocese. If it is all spun off into individual pseudo-biographical articles (real biographical articles being impossible, cf. no.2) then a picture of the diocese becomes impossible, and the work of the reader is made more difficult. Wikipedia does not forbid or discourage the posting of the same information in similar contexts.

I hope that my comments help you to understand my perspective. I hate to have to say it, but you are not the 'Censor librorum' of the Catholic portal.

--Vicedomino (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I have taken the liberty of refactoring your comment since it is on my talk page.)
I mean that it is not the purpose of footnotes appended to lists of bishops in articles on dioceses to give brief biographies. See Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Agrigento. In some cases, it could lead to duplication. For example, you put a note for bishop Gerlandus even though he has an article. So by "a lot" I mean that the note is more than is necessary to understand what it applies to: the bishop's name and dates.
You are, obviously, under no obligation to create articles you do not wish to create. But why send the reader to a footnote that reads:

Ramirez belonged to a noble family of Toledo (Spain). At the age of eleven, he was sent to Salamanca, where he ultimately obtained the degree of Master of theology. He taught theology in the houses of his Order, and ultimately became a Regent Master at the Dominican school at Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome. King Philip V of Spain presented him to the diocese of Brindisi, which was approved by Pope Innocent XI on 28 February 1689. On 26 August 1697 Ramirez was transferred to the diocese of Agrigento by Pope Innocent XII, where he was received on 15 September. He held a diocesan synod in 1703. In May 1702 he took the place of the ailing Archbishop of Palermo at the head of the Royal Council of Sicily. In 1713, when the government of Sicily and the Papacy were engaged in an argument, Ramirez was ejected from his diocese; he retired to Rome. He died at the Minerva on 27 August 1715.

...instead of an article? It is as easy for the reader to get back to where he was from the article as from the footnote. Certainly the footnotes you are making provide more information than is present in the list or the article on the diocese, so the reader who wants more information will not be disappointed, even if he was hoping for more.
"I do not approve of the business of turning every Catholic name into a separate article and populating it with material taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic-hierarchy.org." Neither do I, but since that isn't what you are doing, why bring it up? There is an article, if I'm not mistaken, on every single English bishop ever. They are of good quality and rely on scholarly sources (at least the medieval ones I'm familiar with). Why should only England get this treatment?
"I disagree vehemently with you that 'bishops are basically notable by definition'. Especially in the first millennium they are little more than names. This is not to say that many bishops are not notable; they are. The question is whether there is enough information about them to warrant a separate article." There is no disagreement, because I agree with you. What I mean is that being a (Catholic) bishop is notable. Of course, if there is nothing that can be said about a bishop other than his name and century, then no article is needed. The list will suffice perfectly. When you can stuff a paragraph-long biography in a footnote, however, you are dealing with a notable bishop.
"If it is all spun off into individual pseudo-biographical articles." Your standards are too high. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have short articles. All the time. We are not here to write a series of book-length biographies. Wikipedia is a work in progress. A short article may become a long article in time.
"a picture of the diocese becomes impossible". That should be presented in the text, not in a series of footnotes to a list! Srnec (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You replied: "So by "a lot" I mean that the note is more than is necessary to understand what it applies to: the bishop's name and dates." I did not know that references could only apply to a bishop's name and dates. Where does that rule come from? Can you help me by citing a Wikipedia information page that defines the permitted content on Catholic diocese pages?
When you say, ...'more than is necessary', are you suggesting that there is a maximum size to a footnote (such as the one on Ramirez)? If so, could you help me by citing a Wikipedia information page that defines the maximum size?
You replied: "it is not the purpose of footnotes appended to lists of bishops in articles on dioceses to give brief biographies"? Where does this restriction come from? Can you help me by citing a Wikipedia information page that defines the permitted content? (And, by the way, none of the footnotes is a 'brief biography'. At the very most, a few of them are 'extracts from a CV'. There is a big difference both in purpose and in content.)
--Vicedomino (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are no rules. We do what works best. You and I have a difference of opinion about what that is in this case. I think the purpose of a list of bishops is to tell you who (name) was bishop when (dates). I think that other information about the bishop mostly belongs elsewhere, namely in the bishop's article, which almost all of them should eventually get. You seem to think that in the meantime it is best to write paragraph-long footnotes. Nobody is stopping you.
As for your specific queries... I never said references could only apply to bishop's names and dates. When the main text is only a name and dates, however, there is nothing else that needs referencing. That is the case with lists. You have added information that needs referencing in the footnote itself. This is an editorial decision that has nothing to do with the list of bishops, either its completeness or correctness. By "more than is necessary" I meant exactly what I said: more than is necessary to understand the name and dates. Take for instance, the case of Sampiro of Astorga. We know that his predecessor was still bishop on 26 May 1034, that he was not yet a bishop on 13 June and that he was by 22 September. The list should say "1034", but an explanation of the date range (13 June–22 Sept.) would make sense in the footnote. Telling us that he wrote a chronicle would be out of place. Link his article. Srnec (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 2[edit]

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.

Kingdom of Jerusalem
added a link pointing to Ascalon
Tolidah
added a link pointing to Khwarazmian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Administrative subdivisions of the Papal States from 1816 to 1871, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tivoli, Loreto and Subiaco. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re: Images from Rhodes[edit]

I am afraid I uploaded all I had, and I know very little about Rhodos otherwise, I was just a tourist. You may want to ask at the talk of a relevant WikiProject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation needed: Odo of Burgundy[edit]

Can you disambiguate the links to Odo of Burgundy? I'm not sure if I could distinguish those intended for Odo, Count of Nevers from the others. Thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30[edit]

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.

Catalogus Baronum
added links pointing to Sora, Aquino and Arce
Jean de Vienne (archbishop, died 1351)
added a link pointing to Mézières

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reichskrieg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vendetta. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francia and Wisigoth[edit]

Hi You need to discuss it on talk per WP:BRD and get consensus for the change. "Recomended" means that it is not an obligation an I am opposed to your edit. Could you revert yourself ? The user have reversed his removing. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be dealt with page by page. I am not on a crusade, but in certain cases TompaDompa was clearly correct. Out of context, lists of countries can be highly misleading. Srnec (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Muñoz[edit]

I changed back your change. This can be confusing, but Rodrigo Pérez de Traba and his wife had mothers and maternal grandfathers of the same names. Rodrigo Pérez was son of Mayor (alias Guntroda) Rodríguez, daughter of Asturian count Rodrigo Muñoz, and her husband Pedro Fróilaz de Traba. Fronilde Fernández, the wife of Rodrigo Pérez, was daughter of Mayor Rodríguez, daughter of Galician count Rodrigo Muňoz, and her husband Fernando Núñez. Agricolae (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought upon seeing the link "Rodrigo Muñoz (Galician count)" was that it was the count who died at Sagrajas? He's been on my list of 11th-century counts who need articles. But when I saw the name Mayor there and at Rodrigo Muñoz (Asturian count), I thought it was a simple mistake. I did not know that both Rodrigo Muñozes had daughters named Mayor. Srnec (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that Rodrigo Pérez married the daughter of Mayor Rodríguez, daughter of count Rodrigo Muñoz, I immediately thought it was the Asturian, but then I looked at his page and saw his daughter Mayor married Pedro Frúelaz and was mother of Rodrigo, and since he and his bride were not going to have been half-siblings, it had to be either an error or a different Rodrigo Muñoz. That sent me to Barton, and on to Salazar y Acha, in the process getting tied up in knots over the 4 (or more) different counts named Munio Rodríguez of this name mentioned by him and Canal Sánchez Pagín in their works on royal mistress Jimena Muñoz. Agricolae (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Dertosa) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Dertosa, Srnec!

Wikipedia editor Chris troutman just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Creating redirects allows them to be hijacked years later. I recommend not creating redirects unless you're going to be around to supervise them.

To reply, leave a comment on Chris troutman's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Chris Troutman (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mons-en-Pévèle[edit]

Do you know of any information concerning Philip IV being wounded at Mons-en-Pévèle? According to Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century: Discipline, Tactics, and Technology, by Kelly DeVries, page 33, "...a Flemish attack that reached the king, nearly killing him."

Would that indicate he was wounded? Or is this to close to original research?--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the usual suspects, I cannot find a specific reference to injury. In Verbruggen's description of the battle in The Art of Warfare, he does not say that the king was injured, although he describes in detail the king's predicament. Here is one paragraph:

The Flemish attack took Philip the Fair by surprise. He was sitting on the ground, and his first attempt to remount failed, but he was more successful the second time. He had only a small following with him, but even though he saw his troops fleeing, he resumed the unequal battle. He was scarcely in the saddle when William's men came up. The king's horse was killed, his faithful knights perished, but Philip defended himself stoutly. At one moment he lost his weapon, but a butcher gave him a gigantic battle-axe, with which the king felled several of the enemy. Luckily for him he was not recognized, for his knights had ripped off the royal lilies. The oriflamme lay on the ground in shreds. William went on with his men towards the French camp.

I think it is safe to say that the king was not seriously injured, although he was quite possibly injured in one of the minor ways that is typical in such battle (even possibly by falling from his horse). Srnec (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will remove the WIA from the infobox. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Verbruggen thinks the French only lost 1800?? Wow! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He says: "The losses on both sides were heavy, about 300 nobles in the French army, and perhaps 1,500 to 2,000 foot-soldiers. The Flemings had lost as many men, or very nearly so, but they had many wounded as well, and had lost their waggons and tents." His footnote indicates that he thinks the Annales Gandenses and the Chronique artésienne have exaggerated the numbers. He is generally on the low side when estimating military numbers. This battle was claimed as a victory by both sides and was long commemorating as such in the city of Bruges, but Verbruggen agrees that the French claim was justified by their possession of the field of battle at the end of the day. Srnec (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me, or wouldn't you think that Philip would have had a serious amount of his troops between him and the Flemish? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles 601-1400 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of battles 601-1400. Since you had some involvement with the List of battles 601-1400 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crusade of Barbastro[edit]

Redlinks make pages prettier, I know, so I will try not to edit them for a day or two. The one in question could easily be eliminated, I think, if the name of the city was written in Castilian (Lérida) or in Catalan, either contemporary (Làrida) or present-day (Lleida). But let it pass. Clifford Mill (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling in the article is Arabic. I do not care if you change it to either Castilian or Catalan. I just care that a link not be removed simply because it is red. I will work on turning it blue. Srnec (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Clifford Mill (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House of Boson and House of Bivin[edit]

Ok. The two houses are different and must separated, otherwise there will be confusion. I made the necessary corrections, so now the Royalty Infobox is more accurate. Tank you Aris de Methymna (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 23:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NotBroken[edit]

FYI please see User talk:Arado#WP:NOTBROKEN -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrey III de Bohun[edit]

Hello, I saw your edit on Humphrey de Bohun's page. I'd never heard or read about Matilda (I didn't know the ODNB article). My edits about a daughter called Margaret are based on speculations: a Margaret, consanguinea of Henry II of England, married Pedro Manrique de Lara on 23 January 1183. The link between this Margaret and Humphrey de Bohun is that the charter issued on 23 January 1183 was kept ina priory founded by Humphrey's grandfather, Miles of Gloucester.

She was thought to be Margaret of Huntingdon, by C. F. H. Evans but several facts discredit this theory. Other hypotheses make this Margaret the daughter of Margaret of Huntingdon and Humphrey III de Bohun, or of Margaret of Huntingdon and Conan IV, Duke of Brittany, given her estimated age in January 1183.--Aziliz Breizh (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB article says "He left a daughter, Matilda, and a son, Henry de Bohun, who in 1187 was a minor in the custody of Margaret de Bohun, the widow of Humphrey (II) de Bohun." Srnec (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Astarac[edit]

I came across Astarac because I felt an urge to translate fr:Bernard IV d'Astarac into English - but in the English article, he's called (I think wrongly) Bernard III. I have a bunch of citations lined up for him, but haven't yet started translation. I am working through the citations I found for Astarac, and am aligning that article with them and adding {{ill}} links. (Russian Wiki is surprisingly good on Occitania (provided you ignore the WP:OR to which that Wiki is prone).)

I'll let you know when I have done all I am thinking of doing with Astarac. Guinaudeau, which I haven't yet read in full, looks like a very good citation; there may be enough meat in it to get Astarac up to start class. Narky Blert (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Guinaudeau, it looks like you are right about the numbering, but that Bernard II was not count of Astarac. In the family tree he provides in his thesis he has the same numbering as the French WP, but he does not call Bernard II a count (comes or consul) like the other Bernards. That's based on a quick look. I'd have to look into it further to see if it is not just a mistake in the family tree. Srnec (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The de Jourdain citation which I recently found and added to Astarac convinces me that the numbering of the Bernard's of Asterac in English Wiki is correct, and that other Wikis and also some of the citations are wrong (or misleading, at any rate). "Bernard II" according to Père Anselme (between Bernard I and Bohemond) looks as if it could be an error for Sancho II. "Bernard II" has the wrong dates to have ever been comte d'Asterac. According to Guinaudeau, he was the younger brother of Sancho II (comes et consul 1134-1168, according to Guinaudeau), and was active 1141-1144. I don't see how "Bernard II" can ever have been "Bernard II of Asterac". I'm with de Jourdain and English Wiki on this, whatever anything else may say. (An explanatory footnote will be needed in my planned article on Bernard III of Astarac (1249-1291).) Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House de la Villa Tancréde[edit]

So how do I go about editing the title?

Dwj452 (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House de la Villa Tancréde[edit]

Srnec,

So how would I go about editing the title?

Thanks, Dwj452 (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conundrum[edit]

Conrad I, Count of Luxembourg article states that he married a Clementia(no sources), but according to Pit Péporté, Constructing the Middle Ages: Historiography, Collective Memory and Nation-Building in Luxembourg, page 295, Conrad married an Ermesinde of Poitou(d.1084).

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See here. According to this article his first wife was Ermesinde of Poitou, often misidentified as an Alsatian. His second wife, Clementia, was probably but not certainly the countess of Gleiberg of the same name. (Note that the French Wiki gives him two wives: Ermesinde from Alsace and Clementia from Poitou.) Based on the primary sources quoted in the source I linked, I'd go with two wives, but I'd make clear that their origins are only educated guesses nowhere explicitly stated in any primary source. Ermesinde was dead by 1083, when Conrad was already re-married. The confusion about the two wives' origins seems to stem from the fact that Conrad was calling himself count of Poitou in 1088, and it is assumed he got the claim from marrying the known daughter Ermesinde of Count William VII. But by 1088 she was dead and his wife was Clementia. Srnec (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mogollón[edit]

Thanks for putting the deletion template in Gil Alfonso de León. He supposedly had a son, Pedro Gil de Mogollón, who, besides being irrelevant, might not be the son of Gil Alfonso de León, who according to the source I had used, did not really exist and, if he did, I doubt that having been in the conquest of Cáceres in 1229 would have had a son who would be the lord of the house of Mogollón in 1320, nearly a century later. The user who created these and other articles was blocked and he created quite a few of these articles on irrelevant or non-existant individuals based on very unreliable or very outdated sources. Regards, Maragm (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could PROD Pedro Gil. Even if he is a real person, it is unlikely that he is related as claimed to the nonexistent Gil Alfonso and the historical Pedro Gil of 1320–40. He is also unlikely to be notable. Given the article's poor sourcing and its origin with a now-banned editor, I don't think it's any loss to the encyclopedia if that article were deleted. Srnec (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German referendum, 1933[edit]

Thanks for repeatedly deleting the infobox that I took the trouble to add to German referendum, 1933. You should aim at a more collaborative attitude to editing in future. Please try using article talk pages instead of edit warring. Thank you. Cnbrb (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You took the trouble to copy paste text from the article and give percentages that don't add up. You made large (1,056 byte) addition and, when reverted with an explanation, you restored your edit and deleted some of the original text, including the sourcing, as another editor pointed out. At that point the infobox consisted of text taken from the lead right beside it and a graph with percentages that didn't add up. Srnec (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Srnec. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beltrán de Risnel[edit]

Hello Srnec, I just edited the article on Beltrán de Risnel and fixed the name of María's husband, who was not a Lara (well, yes, on his mother's side) and Sánchez de Mora explains it correctly, although it is complicated. I was searching for info on the Luna and came across this journal. There's one article on nobles and the royal family which has some interesting hypotheses, although the author does mess up on Sancho Sánchez de Erro's filiation and issue. On p. 61 of that pdf, there is some info on Beltran's filiation but since I'm not familiar with European genealogies except for those from the Iberian Peninsula, I can't form an opinion on its accuracy. The article is "Las tenencias navarras de Alfonso el Batallador". The author says that Beltrán was a grandson of Thibaut, count of Risnel (sic instead of Reynel as in the Thibaut article) and his wife Ermentrude de Ramerupt who was the daughter of Hilduin IV, Count of Montdidier and sister of Felicia of Roucy, married to Sancho Ramírez, king of Aragon. Let me know your opinion on this. Maragm (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. One source I found but cannot access is Henri de Faget de Casteljau, "Encore les Reynel", Cahiers Haut Marnais, 100 (1970), pp. 45–49. Google has snippets of that issue, but nothing I can see about Thibaut or Bertrand. Srnec (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found this link and, though I cannot access the document (I requested it some months ago), what I can see in google is: “Bertrand de Laon, enfin, petit-fils de Thibaut de Reynel et dErmentrude”… Perhaps that Bertrand would be Beltrán's father. If you can access it, can you forward me a copy? Maragm (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this one, which can be downloaded, p. 625: Tertiam jamdicti Hilduini comitis filiam Ermentrudem nomine duxit Theobaldus, comes de Rinnel, de qua orta est Eldiardis, mater Ebali de Buxi et Bertranni comitis, qui de filia imperatoris Hispaniae habuit liberos utriusque sexus". In this quote, rather than Beltrán being the grandson of Thibaut (Theobaldus) he appears as his son. The last part I understand means that this Bertranni comitis received some "liberos" (freed slaves?) from the daughter of the Emperor of Spain (Urraca, I assume). Maragm (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Pd...also, if you can access this one, I would appreciate a copy. Maragm (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I see that you added the section on his filiation. I'll use it for the article in es.wiki. Another thing I wanted to point out. In the section "Church affairs and marriage" note 14 "Reilly, Queen Urraca, 217 can find no documentation to corroborate her claimed marriage to García Pérez de Traba". Sánchez de Mora (Casa de Lara), p. 198 mentions that according to Salazar y Castro she married García Pérez de Traba and quotes a donation that she made in 1138 (also quotes it in vol. II, p. 465) to the Galician monastery of San Paio de Antealtares: "comitissa Gelvira, domini Petri et reginae domne Urracae filia pro anima mei viri domine Garcia, comitis domini Petri filius et dominae Maioris" and for the soul of "filiorumque meorum" who are buried at this monastery. The marriage is also mentioned by Margarita Torres (Linajes...) p. 227 and in p. 104, note 21 in this article. I don't have the cartulary of this monastery (Paio de Antealtares) but I'll check if it's in Ferreiro. So it does seem that Elvira first married García and had children with him. I also find another individual with the last name Beltrán: Pedro Beltrán (don't know his filiation, but perhaps was also the son of Elvira and Beltrán de Risnel, named after his grandfather Pedro de Lara) who married Urraca Vermúdez, daughter of Vermudo Pérez de Traba and infanta Urraca of Portugal) They had at least two children: Fernando Beltrán and Elvira Pérez. This is mentioned in López Sangil's work on the Trabas, p. 75. I cannot confirm it yet, but it does seem plausible given the last name of Beltrán). Regards, Maragm (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Sánchez de Mora and you are right. I've amended the article. In trying to identify Beltrán's French relatives, I noticed a contradiction between an article I wrote on Ralph IV of Valois and the article on Hilduin IV, Count of Montdidier. Ralph, according to several sources, acquired Montdidier by his second marriage to a woman whose real name is unknown. What's more, a source which I do not have (J. N. Mathieu, "Le comte Raoul IV de Valois et ses héritiers en Champagne", Mémoires de la Société d'Agriculture, Commerce, Sciences et Arts du département de la Marne, 115 (2000), 30–66) seems from Google snippets to say that Beltrán's mother, Hildiarde, had more than one and probably more than two husbands. So although Bernard's filiation is cleared up, I'm not sure if the siblings I've listed are full or half siblings. Srnec (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I simplified his ancestry a bit in es.wiki since I'm not familiar with these families and es.wiki still lacks articles on many of these nobles. Just wanted to check a couple of things. Ref 18 (Barton and Fletcher)...I don't see the title of that work (just Barton, not Fletcher). Also, in the last paragraph in the section "Acquisition of power...you mention that between 1113 and 1115 "he often employed the title of count, perhaps as a courtesy to a foreigner". Was he, perhaps, a count in France? Maragm (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've filled in that citation. In fact, that's the source that makes Beltrán a half-brother of Alfonso Jordan of Toulouse (in an editorial footnote: there's no way that is right, however; it seems that one of the editors confused Beltrán with Bertrand of Toulouse). Regarding his ancestry, I think it can all be backed up by Guenée's extensive family tree, which goes back to Henry the Fowler (!), but as it is stretched over several journal pages it's not easy to do.
I have also changed the wording to indicate that he was called a count during his time at Urraca's court and not that this may have been a mere courtesy. Reilly doesn't say that, and I think I may have been assuming it was an Aragonese title because at the time I was reading Barton and he excludes Beltrán from his list of Castilian-Leonese counts, which he tried to make exhaustive. I don't know enough about the comital title in Aragon to know if that makes sense. I do not think it was a "real" French title, although what I do know of the Champagne at this time (see Renard II of Dampierre-en-Astenois) indicates that minor lords sometimes claimed the title of count. Perhap Beltrán's grandfather, Thibaud, was doing that. So maybe that's what Beltrán called himself when he got to Spain, but I'm only speculating. I do not think that he would have been a count of or by Urraca, but by Alfonso as king of Aragon, so I think the "foreign courtesy" statement is correct (since the comital title was royally controlled in Castile-León), just not backed up by the source cited. Srnec (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized, trying to sort out that abbot Domingo, who is claimed to have been an illegitimate son of count Gómez González (Candespina), debunked by other authors, especially Canal Sánchez-Pagín in the article on Count Gómez (p. 50) that his widow, Urraca Muñoz, married Beltrán. Maragm (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Not sure when Urraca died (I have c. 1115, but can't find the source). Also, I have a note on one of Beltran's early appearance in a cartulary. A charter from the Monastery of Santa María de Valpuesta, 27 october 1112 is dated: Alfonso rex aragonensis in Leione et in Castella simulque in Nagera et comite Bertran in Termino et Panticurbo (Termino is Santa Gadea del Cid and Panticurbo is Pancorbo). This sentence should also be changed, I gather, "Beltrán was appointed governor of Logroño in Castile by Alfonso in June 1112. He arrived in Castile in 1113" I think he probably arrived before 1112. And maybe Urraca was the mother of María Beltrán.Maragm (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incorporated. I think I will need to go through and re-structure the article now that it's gotten longer. I am still reading Estepa Díez. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited War of the Three Henries (977–978), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting[edit]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol invasion of Bulgaria and Serbia[edit]

Hello, Srnec. You have new messages at Tobyc75's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Istvaeonic languages and other articles[edit]

Hello, I saw your edit on the above article. Worth noting that the situation might be more complicated that you realized.

  • There is the one article re-name proposal discussion you closed, but there is also another article merge proposal down lower. In my opinion, both these proposals were wrongly done. The original re-naming proposal also involved a merge proposal by the same editor, which that editor also then did, and the merge proposal was actually a split proposal if you see what that editor was really proposing.
  • In reality, during these recent discussions, the Istvaeones article was also merged into Istvaeonic languages, and then split back out again, but not before a lot of editing and talk page discussion happened on the latter.
  • This means that in practice the Istvaeonic languages article was actually SPLIT into NEW versions of the other two mentioned articles. The talk page history (and even the edits) are relevant to both.

I had been thinking of simply putting special comments on both destination talk pages, with linking to the old article talk page, which is now a redirect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that there was agreement about what should be done in the section "Attempt to come to some agreed actions". It seemed that AKAKIOS had implemented it mostly. My only concern was with the muddled article and talk page histories, but it doesn't seem there is much we can do about that but put up notices where convenient. Srnec (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. The second section I mentioned is the one you correctly describe as the basis of more or less agreed (but messy) action. I have put special notes on both the destination talk pages and I see you've tweaked the hatnotes. I just wanted to inform mainly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saturnalia![edit]

Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians[edit]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Hello, Srnec.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad citation[edit]

Hi,

I noticed that you removed the source I added (diff) with explanation that it is bad. Will you please be so kind to explain why do you think that it is bad?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just saw that it is the same source. Thank you for your help.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation Reviewing[edit]

Hello, Srnec.
AfC submissions
Random submission
3+ months
2,439 pending submissions
Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tripartite Pact members[edit]

I've been searching for more sources and it has shown to be a challenge. I found a few different websites that mention that Thailand, Manchukuo, and the Nanjing government joined the pact on 15 February 1942. The best source I found was this book by Ian Nish from 2002, Japanese Foreign Policy in the Interwar Period, which briefly mentions the three countries joining in one sentence in vague detail. Interestingly the article Axis powers mentions Thailand joining the pact on that date as well. Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can't find anything at all. It wouldn't surprise me if the idea of Manchukuo and/or Jingwei's China joining the pact was discussed, but I doubt anything came of it. I think some people sloppily equate the Tripartite Pact and the Axis, but whereas the latter is an informal term with no "official" def'n, the Tripartite Pact was an int'l treaty and to "join" it you had to sign a separate treaty of accession. Srnec (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish based on Czech[edit]

Hi-čau Srnec, you put back the sentence I took out. Many people say many things - but if they say complete idiocies, we should not quote them, right? Hypothetising that Yiddish is based on Czech or staročeština is similar to hypothesis that Czech is based on Swedish. I well can put it up.... as I speak Czech and German fluently and read the XXth century Yiddish decently, I allow myself to make this statement. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missverstaendnis (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't published it in an academic journal or in a monograph from an academic press. Wexler has. We deal with the fact that his theory is not considered true in the next sentence: "This view has been dismissed among nearly all mainstream academics..." That's how we deal with 'idiocies'. The reason it is important to mention Wexler's theory is that somebody may have heard of it and come here looking for information. Srnec (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zeila[edit]

Hi, I saw that you made an edit to this article, I thought I'd let you know that there's currently an WP:RFC about the use of Havilah and Avalites in the article, you are welcome to add your thoughts to the discussion here. Iffy★Chat -- 11:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Repoblación art and architecture[edit]

The article Repoblación art and architecture has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Full of unsourced synthesis, lacking in focus and topic, sources are nowhere in sight

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrenfried, Count of Toxandria[edit]

Hi, you commented on this article's name but apparently based on an interpretation of your post the whole discussion was now closed. In any case, might be helpful if you respond again underneath where I have now posted. A point that might help avoid misunderstanding is whether you agree the current name is not a good one. Not sure I know many editors who look at this type of topic?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what do you think of Reginar, Duke of Lorraine? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The old Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 3, makes him duke of Lorraine. If you want "Reginar Longneck", I've no objection. Srnec (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see now you were referencing my remark on the article talk page. I should have referenced MOS:HONORIFIC, which was my actual motivation, but I got lazy. Still, Reginar is cited as a dux in sources, I believe, whether or not he was actually duke of Lorraine. Srnec (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a difficult period to be sure of anything, so finding the least controversial names or facts are tricky. I have tagged the article for more sourcing in specific places for now. If you can add any, that would be great!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start work, here is a tricky one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmo,_Count_of_Hesbaye I have some ideas. I will post on the talk page first this time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one now also completely re-written. Not sure if the 3 Emmo/Ehrenfried articles we have are split up the best way, but I can not see a better way either. The other two are genealogically anchored without committing too much to what they did outside of their home region, and this one is about a bunch of life events in "pre-Belgium" belonging to one or more people. Hopefully it covers the way people are likely to search for information best. Anyway, it is based on the 3 Emmo articles we already had. I have to say I am tempted to see them as the Belgian, the Dutchman and the German. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reginar[edit]

Re this edit, was Lotharingia a kingdom at the time? Complicated to call it that in this generation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert (advocate of Gembloux Abbey)[edit]

Regarding this name change, it definitely seems an improvement but I think it is unfortunately definitely still wrong. Unless I am missing something, Lambert was not advocatus of Gembloux, he just sold half a church to them. I will add some more sources to help you consider. It is another difficult case of an article made by User:Dr. Grampinator which maybe shouldn't even exist. I think Lambert's notability is as a side character in very detailed discussions about other people, so if he is to have any article it is not easy to write it, because it will be about rather slow and complex academic debates written in several languages. As usual however, and following the WP:PRESERVE idea, that is what I'll try to do in good faith. Ideas welcome. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert, Nobleman of the Maasau?
I think I made that page move because the article at the time stated, "Nothing is known about Lambert except that he was Advocate of Gembloux Abbey." Also, we have a Lambert I, Count of Louvain, so would this guy be Lambert the Zeroth? (Lambert I of Louvain, the son of Reginar III, is to my knowledge pretty securely known.) I'd prefer the form Lambert (nobleman of the Maasgau), but that title is alright with me. Vanderkindere rejects the charter that makes Lambert advocate and it is hard to see anyone taking that charter seriously. Srnec (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do your version. BTW I needed to create this one in the same family, because all the links for him were going to Ehrenfried (based on Vanderkindere): Ansfried the Elder, Count in Lotharingia‎. That already got moved a bit back and forth on the name.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arrière-ban, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ban (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chansonniers has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Chansonniers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Denmark in World War II into Nordic countries in World War II. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

Why do you erase my edition? アステール王子 (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who says she's famous for being a purely female line ancestor of Queen Victoria? This is not a notable fact about her. Or do you have a source that says it is? Srnec (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, “famous“ was an inadequate expression, but she is a “purely“ female line ancestor of all of these big names, Queen Victoria, Wilhelm II, Edward VII, Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, last Queen consort Alexandra and last crown prince Alexei of Russian Empire, Victoria Eugenie, Queen consort of Spain, Ernest Louis of Hesse and by Rhine. I think this is very important fact about hirtory and her. アステール王子 (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But what you think is an important fact is not necessarily what Wikipedia presents as an important fact. Why is lineal descent in the female line of any significance at all? Do any authors say it is? Does any author make the Garsenda–Victoria connection? We need reliable sources, not your own research. —Srnec (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:Linea imperiale map.PNG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Linea imperiale map.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 22:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srnec/Archive,_29_March_2016–3_March_2018&oldid=1076084526"