User talk:Agricolae

Armourials

Hi. I noted your post on Lobsterthermidor's talk page about the use of the word "armorial". Browsing today, I came across Gorges family which includes several mentions of "armourials". I guess the same correction to "arms" would be relevant here, but am not certain.

I think the book title Burke's Armorials (1884) in the Refs and Sources sections may be wrong too. I have a pdf copy of The General Armory by Burke (1884), which matches the reference cited to it (p. 413) - it's from here: https://archive.org/details/generalarmoryofe00burk —SMALL JIM 19:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of sloppy usage, with all the more confusion being added by the use of armorial as an adjective - 'armorial bearings' with it used as an adjective is a legitimate alternative to coat of arms, but armorial alone, as a noun, is not. In bibliographical form, the Burke collection could be called (with a bit of liberty) Burke's Armorial, but not Burke's Armorials, but there is no good reason not to name it correctly. I will give the page a look. Agricolae (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup, the whole section needs rewritten - it is standard Lobsterthermidor coat-racking - the sentence is about whether Hugh de Morville was a member of the same Morville family that held Knighton - completely irrelevant to the Gorges family. Agricolae (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good explanation - if I come across the term again, I'll change it myself. Regarding the rest I'm keeping shtum until the current discussions on his talk page/sub-page come to an end. —SMALL JIM 11:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Johnson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Capture of Cambridge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capture of Cambridge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of Cambridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Capture of Oxford for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capture of Oxford is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of Oxford until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Siege of Cardiff for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Siege of Cardiff is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Cardiff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baron de Mauley

The first source says that Lord de Mauley and his wife have no children. The second source say that George is his brother.

How many clues do you need?

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about drawing deductions from clues. We don't get to draw our own conclusions. Agricolae (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's about compiling information, and this is two pieces of info that taken together can only mean one thing.

Peerage News is not published by Lord de Mauley. NYT is also "self-published" then.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused between independence - whether the material is published by the subject or someone associated with the subject - and self-published, meaning that that the person who wrote it is the one who published it, with no separate editorial review. When the New York Times publishes something, it is first written by the reporter, and then it undergoes review and editing by a separate person, the editor, who assesses it for both accuracy and noteworthiness. That does not happen on blogs, personal websites, subsidy-published books, etc., where anyone can say absolutely anything they want, whether it is untrue, misleading or just uninteresting trivia. Anything that is 'just one person's opinion' falls short of reliability and noteworthiness standards. It is all moot though, because -

WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is exactly what you are doing here, and it is not appropriate. Agricolae (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, and don't allege that I am "forcing" anything. I am adding sources as I find them. I could sneak it into the article, but that would be gaming.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you put the same thing in three times, in the face of objection and in spite of an ongoing Talk discussion, I don't think 'forcing' is as unfair as you suggest. I am not opposed to the information being in the article, with an appropriate source. However, when text gets removed from an article for poor sourcing, as happened with this text months ago (and it was a different editor who removed it, not me), it shouldn't be put back in without good sourcing, not just whatever webpage on finds. I would think Debrett's would have this information, and it would be an acceptable WP:RS. Agricolae (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing Talk discussion? Where is that? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where you decided to open it. Here. Agricolae (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

turned out the blogs were on the right track - this was never about 'being on the right track'. Iit was always about not including information on living people without appropriate sourcing. Agricolae (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But they were. And why am I not surprised you found something to "correct"? You know, people are probably actually not reading articles from start to end very often, and pictures and charts tend to draw the reader's attention. So, a reader looking at the chart might react to George being "Hon." and wonder why that is, when his father never inherited the title. Why should he/she have to look for an explanation some place else in the article? What's wrong with having the same remark in the chart too? Why do we have a name parameter in ref tags and in efn if they're not to be used more than once in an article? Oh, never mind.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) No, they were not appropriate, as explained above. You found an acceptable source, so quit being argumentative for its own sake. 2) And why am I not surprised you found something to "correct"? You know better than to be this uncivil. Agricolae (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natalis soli invicto!

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got to the Rus page via

https://www.facebook.com/groups/149844915349213 the False Archaeology Wall of Shame. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have had it watchlisted for a while to push back against the periodic overreaching conclusions based on DNA tests of medieval rulers, but don't really pay much attention beyond that. I have noticed that 83.227.81.54 has been making one edit after another in a manner that is concerning (it is inherently concerning any time an IP makes a whole bunch of edits claiming that the current article is biased), but I have yet to summon up the interest to take a close look at what they have been doing, nor am I likely to. Agricolae (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame you. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive POV edits on several pages

Hi, I've noticed you've been seeing and dealing with a lot of these disruptive edits on Emirate of Sicily and elsewhere, so for what it's worth I've posted a request to investigate a number of those accounts that look like sockpuppets to me. It's my first time going to that noticeboard though, so if you have any other suggestions/feedback let me know. Otherwise I assume it's a matter of waiting for the outcome. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of slavery in Spain

I modified the research on the history of slavery and recorded it in Wikipedia in the English language Thetranslaterofhistory (talk). 21:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment on your Talk page. Agricolae (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article contains a great effort. As for exaggeration, there is no exaggeration in my article. Rather, I wrote the facts that existed as well in the Abbasid era. Thetranslaterofhistory (talk). 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you changed the lede to read "The Arabs The Spanish Arabs traced their origins to the two great ethnic groups or tribes of theAdnanite or Arabs of the north and the Qahtani of yemen Yes, southern Arabs". The Yamharat also collects the genealogies of other peoples such as the indigenous families, such as the Banu Qasi of Aragon". Setting aside the grammatical and tone issues, this is completely irrelevant to Spanish slavery. You also removed sections on 'Christian slavery in Spain', 'African slavery in Spain' and 'Moorish Slavery in Spain', all of which are noteworthy aspects of the subject. Also, you said in some of your edit summaries that you based your changes on the Spanish-language Wikipedia article about the same subject - I looked at it, and I would cousider this characterization less than honest, as you have already been warned about. I am not going to make the argument that the existing article is good - it is not, but what you have replaced it with is no improvement. Again, if you want specific changes made along the lines you are pursuing, you had best garner consensus for the changes on the article's Talk page first. Agricolae (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for fixing the Muladi links. Take this as a token of forgiveness. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rus' people

Do you want me to help out with the article or not?--Berig (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Perhaps it wasn't clear that I was addressing my comment to Victoria, who had expressed displeasure over your removal of the section. I was intending to explain to them why the text you removed was of enough problem that it merited your action. Agricolae (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-)--Berig (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What the fully wrong about the article??

Did you know the history before you say there's no wrong??

"The Moors used ethnic European slaves: 1/12 of Iberian population were slave Europeans, less than 1% of Iberia were Moors and more than 99% were native Iberians. Periodic Arab and Moorish raiding expeditions were sent from Islamic Iberia to ravage the remaining Christian Iberian kingdoms, bringing back stolen goods and slaves. In a raid against Lisbon in 1189, for example, the Almohad caliph Yaqub al-Mansur held 3,000 women and children as captives, while his governor of Córdoba, in a subsequent attack upon Silves, held 3,000 Christian slaves in 1191. In addition, the Christian Iberians who lived within Arab and Moorish-ruled territories were subject to specific laws and taxes for state protection."

That's very very very wrong!!and there's no source!!i start wrote another one and delete all that's messy stuff Suwanax12 (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "there's no wrong". I simply asked for specifics. If you are going to start a discussion on a Talk page but all you say is 'the article is all wrong and I am going to change it', you will get no useful feedback. To have a productive exchange on an article's Talk page, you must be explicit in terms of the specific problems and how you intend to change the article to address these problems. Agricolae (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrid dynystay, emirate granda

What make you delete the word "arab" from everywhere?? I saw you do the same things in most article is there's any problem?for delete what i add? Isamaxzs (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is why you made the change from the better description to one that is in one case inferior, and in the other case misleading, and why you inserted a barely-disguised copyright violation into one of the articles? Anyhow, you made a change, it was reverted, now is the time to make your case on the individual articles' Talk pages. Agricolae (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is why did you delete the word "Arab" from the original article ?? I deleted the word "Arab" from everywhere in the Emirate of Granada !! Without a convincing reason, I brought it back as it was and you want to delete the word Arab again !!why what's bothering you? Isamaxzs (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a less-than-honest characterization. Before the recent parade of sock-/meat-puppet ethnic warriors the 'original article' said nothing of the sort. Changes against consensus that are immediately reverted do not establish a new reference point for what constitutes 'the original article' - you have to go before the round of disruption, like here [1]. Now, if you think this is a change that should be made to the article, then you can go a step further than your predecessors and actually try to make your case on the article's Talk page. Agricolae (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you deleted the word "Arab" yourself from the entire article, why? i rewrote it as it was, what makes you want to delete it? Is the article wrong, for example? Isamaxzs (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you just deleted my article that's true, but before deleting my article, the article was originally written the same as what I wrote, but you deleted it for no apparent reason and you returned it to what it was and you deleted it again !! What is the problem ?? Isamaxzs (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]