Jump to content

User talk:Adam Bishop/archive11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Adam Bishop

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UV (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 3 November 2012 (→LucienBOT on la.wikipedia: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


York Article

Hi just want to know under what definition is Israel a part of Europe? They are on the asian continent, speak a non-european language (hebrew), are not a member of the EU, and many more reasons. Please detail the reasons you have decided to include them amongst european ethnicities here before you readd Israel to that article, because it is very Point of View orientated, or could be construed as racialist (they are white so they must be European right? Wrong). IF you want u can add it to the asian section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.226.27 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please rename this account on la.wikipedia

I am a user from de.wikipedia and my account has already been renamed on de.wikipedia, en.wikipedia and es.wikipedia. At the moment I am trying to complete this list in order to be able to close the process of renaming my accounts. I have made some contributions to la.wikipedia, which I would like to be attributed to my new account sulutil:Usquam. The confirmation of my account Usquam can be found here: [1]. Thank you very much in advance. Yours sincerely, --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Guillaume de Melun to William the Carpenter

A redirect you made in 2009 [2] has come up at Wikipedia:Help desk#Why is there a re-direct from Guillaume de Melun to William the Carpenter? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons To Delete J1c3d (Y-DNA)

  1. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
  2. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
  3. Categories representing overcategorization

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The hold on editing has been taken off without explanation, to my knowledge, as of this moment, without justification.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The one who took this off the edit hold did so without reading the talk page.
 JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 I refer to the article for J1c3d Y-DNA haplogroup as is indicated in the very first section of my User talk page.
Please see:


JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vincelord

I am leaving you this message because recently i made edits adding people who were born on September 12, April 15, and December 22, and all mt addition were removed. They were notable people who have Wikipages, yet other editors removed them while keaving up far less notable people. What i want to know is who is supose to be listed on those pages, where my addition not notable enough, were they wrongly removed and if so should i put them back up. I don't want to start an edit war over this, if you have any advice on this matter let me know.Vincelord (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing username request

Hi Adam, could you kindly rename my account (la:user:Sogeking) to the new name Barbaking on la.wikipedia? It is my username on the italian wikipedia, and I'm renaming it globally. Here is a confirmation link on it.wiki. I wrote you some days ago on your discussion page on la.wiki, but probably you don't check it often :). Thanks in advance, --Barbaking (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

by any chance

Hey man, any chance you have access to this page? http://www.medievalsources.co.uk/stbertin.htm

Best, --Ioscius ∞ 09:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page and a gift

Hello Adam, you might not remember that we have discussed in the past. I had not looked at your user page for a while, the list of comments you have there is really hillarious. I have something that you will also enjoy, a gift from some real academic scholars here (hoping that they have not changed it yet - I pointed it out to them). --FocalPoint (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but did you notice how they characterize Planoudes? (in the search page, not in the article)? They apply to him the nationality of ....! --FocalPoint (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real academic scholars vs. illiterate friends 0:1 (because the characterization of illiterate does not correspond to you, be sure, it applies to us all, wikipedia editors and collectively, literate and illiterate, aspirant and unambitious, stupid and smart) --FocalPoint (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate

Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
jmcvea@ualberta.ca

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion still live

This is just a friendly note that the RDH discussion you participated at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011_September_23#College_dating.3B_sociology.3B_hookups_vs_relationships is still live. You may also want to offer suggestions or take part in the discussions at the Talk:College dating. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're still around too?

Just a drive-by wave from a fellow disillusioned old-timer. For some reason I can't help myself from making improvements to articles like Odoacer or Aegidius. (I'd add needed sources to biographical articles about certain famous Vandals, but odd to say it's far easier for me to access primary sources like Procopius than to even find the names of secondary sources in this case. :-) -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember what I thought Wikipedia would be like now back when I started either, but I'm sure it was nothing close to what it has become. I did have the hope that Wikipedia would serve as an Internet outlet for intellectual studies, similar to how the literary quarterlies/small press movement has kept literary efforts alive beyond the colleges & intellectual circles. But instead of considering innovative approaches such as teaching potential contributors how to do research & write good articles, the Foundation appears more interested in spending its limited resources on things like image filtering. (If you haven't heard of that effort, you're happier not knowing.) Anyway, if you get any books into print I invite you to send me an email letting me know; I may not buy a copy (my financial situation has been frustratingly unstable recently), but I definitely would like to follow the course of your research. -- llywrch (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

I ask to consider acts of vandalism party Neftici in article Lezgistan Lezgistxa (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theta

Nice to hear from you! This use of theta is not unique to the Gladiator Mosaic. It's used twice on the paired mosaics recovered from the so-called Villa dei Symmachii, somewhere along the Appian Way. The text (including the theta) is given thorough scholarly treatment in James Henry Oliver's Symmachi, Homo Felix (1957) - d'you have access? That aside, I don't think this use of theta particularly widespread or generalised; but that's just me guessing from negative evidence. Tut. Cynwolfe has added some very useful info at my talk-page, on the military use of this sign. It's a fascinating business, and if I can be of further help, please let me know. Haploidavey (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krak des Chevaliers

I noticed you still take an interest in the article and you started it, so I wondered what you thought of its current state? I've tried to throw in some background information as it's a high-traffic article. It's one of the most popular Crusades-related articles so I think it's possible some readers may be arriving here without much of background knowledge. I'd be interested if you think the current layout works. Until I started writing about the siege I though having information on the castle's layout after the history would be fine but when talking about the siege I'm worried readers may need a grounding in Krak des Chevaliers' layout. Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saladin

Can you read the reference that states Saladin was "Arabized"?
Studies in Caucasian history, Vladimir Minorsky, Cambridge University Press, p??.[3]
I see that it has no page number, so I was curious if you had access or had more information. A search through the book for the word "Arabized" gives 0 results. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Adam Bishop/archive11! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Vagobot

Hi Adam, could you please grant bot status to la:Usor:Vagobot? Thanks in advance! --Aylin (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict at RDL

Hi. I think you accidentally erased a reply of mine, which provided a couple of internal links and a few links to Wiktionary entries to the questioner. I restored my comment as it originally was, and placed {{ec}} right before yours. Hope you don't mind. --Theurgist (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I usually use the "Show changes" button before saving. That's especially helpful for avoiding the erasure of simultaneous posts on other sections. --Theurgist (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otium

This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell talk 19:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded article. Any ideas for a DYK hook?--Doug Coldwell talk 11:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it more concise. Does it need more "fine tuning"? Good Article possibility?--Doug Coldwell talk 17:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for undo?

Please do not abuse your editor privileges. Your reversion of the changes made on the Godfrey of Bouillon page are unfound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.228.133 (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LouisPhilippeCharles

Regarding this diff, the user in question can comment on his talkpage (since talkpage access has not been revoked) unless there is an overriding block on his IP range. He is a serial sockpuppeteer and should not be unblocked, but advised to use the means of appeal that he has available noted by the block notices. -- DQ (t) (e) 08:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saladin

Hi Adam,

in principle I agree with your reversions at Saladin - using 150 year old sources and selectively quoting them out of context and without regard to language changes is inacceptable. But formally you're over WP:3RR. Some Admins do no more then count, so to avoid trouble, it might be a good idea to be more careful in the future. I've semi'd the page, so there should be peace for a few days. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Your Undo to the Page Saladin

Hi Adam Bishop! First of all thanks for your services to Wikipedia.

However, I don't approve your undo and block to the page "Saladin". I think you should be objective about the historical evidences. I give you evidence which contains the term "Saladin the Turk", and you claim it is out of date, or you delete it for unknown reasons. As an academician, you know that the more a resource is close to the evident, the more it is of actual fact. In old texts of British historians, you can see the expression of "Saladin the Turk", and I ask you to add this fact to the article if you are really objective authors of the Wikipedia. Please read the page 357, section XI in the following ebook of archive.org: http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofchrist00reev#page/356/mode/2up

There are other resources as well, which uses the name "Saladin the Turk". We cannot ignore these facts. If you request, I can add here other historical resources of 16th century which uses the name "Saladin the Turk" for him. 78.167.13.185 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my only advice is to bring this up on the Saladin discussion page (where, as you will probably see, it has already been discussed dozens of times over the years). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been already discussed by people many times. However, it is a fact that you ignore the discussions and never edit the article according to the discussions and resources provided. Even and even, you block people to edit it. I think you don't like Turks? :) Anyway, that's all what I'd say. Saladin the Turk is a fact, but you don't want it to be a reality, and you succeed in this job. You are free to edit it as the great and known authors of Wikipedia, but we are just readers of your minds. That was my last post. Good job! Thanks and bye...78.167.13.185 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zengid dynasty

I'm the one that wrote the reference for them being "Turkic". That is not the issue here. I have searched Volume 1 of the sources Carinae986 provided and Zengid/Zangid, Turkish and/or Persian do not appear on page 152. Here you can try.[4] Enjoy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am losing my cool with this guy. He obviously doesn't know anything about this topic, all he's doing is sitting on the sidelines complaining, he's unwiling to put even the slightest effort into this, and he constantly reverts edits because he has loony tunes ideas about how the citation process works. Nobody should have to cite items that are common knowledge among people with the relavant background. Notwithstanding, I did cite, twice, and that's still not good enough for this guy. Now he's complaining that he doesn't have instant access to my source online, and saying I have to type it out for his personal benefit, just to save him the tiny bit of added effort it would take to educate himself. You're a PhD and an Admin - am I wrong here? Can you help resolve this? If I have to go to the local university library and produce 20+ citations to the effect that Arabs spoke Arabic and Turks spoke Turkic, I'll do it just to prove a point with this guy. But it really shouldn't be necessary. It's like having to cite that the sky is blue or the grass is green. Anyway I'm hoping you can help here, because it's perfectly clear to me that I don't have any ability to persuade him on my own. Carinae986 (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is your belonging?

Hi Bishop, You shouldn't unblock the page as if it was your own belonging! Being an Administrator doesn't mean that you'll do whatever you want. Note that Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes. I perceive it's a sort of administrational vandalism of you. Unfortunately you ignore the references that are added by me, and you undo it. You don't provide any logical reason for blocking a page. Also you ignore others' concerns about the article on the discussion page. In the meantime, you should remove the first reference in Ayyubid Dynasty (R. S. Humphreys, "Ayyubids" in Encyclopedia Iranica the link is broken: http://www.iranica.com/articles/ayyubids ) or do whatever it requires for that article. It's now your duty as you prevent people from editing it. Richard Turcoman (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Saint Ladislaus as original leader of the 1st crusade

Why did you deleted Saint Ladislaus in the First Crusade article? There were serious citations there. You can see many (uncountable) hits in google-books which can prove that.


Don't forget: For the deletion, you must search an academic antithesis which can deny that fact. Until that, you must tolerate that information in the article.--Bornder (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Again: You can't proove your statements. Please show me an academic work which can deny that fact. I'm still waitnig for it! Until that, your oppinion remain only just a private opinion.--Bornder (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Sock puppet?=

It is unfounded accusations & slanders! Adam Bishop lost some dicussions, and he try to monopolise some wiki articles. Instead of civilised reasoning and logical argumentation, he tried to solve his problems with administrative ways.--Bornder (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon.com

Are you able to search through books on amazon.com? If so, please see here on page 264[5]. Could you find for me exactly where on that page it states, "The success of the first crusade is at least in part attributable to the political confusion which resulted from Malikshah's death." I can not find anything that mentions Malikshah's death, much less any political confusion resulting from his death.
The assumption that the paragraph, in The Venture of Islam Volume 2, is speaking of Malikshah, when it mentions Syria and Aleppo, could easily be referring to Tutush I who died in 1095. p356
"...Tutush, the brother of the Great Sultan Malikshah, had come to be recognized as the Saljuq overlord of Syria...With Malikshah's death and the ensuing factional fights among the Saljuqs, the relative political stability of Syria too was disrupted. Soon after, when Tutush was killed in Persia in 1095, political confusion became openly manifest in Syria and Tutush's kingdom was broken into a number of smaller states. Syria now became the scene of rivalry among different Saljuq princes and "amirs", each one claiming a part of the country, while various minor local dynasties were at the same time attempting to assert their independence." --The Isma'ilis: Their History and Doctrines, p356. By Farhad Daftary.
This is an excellent reason why a source must explicitly mention what it is referencing. We can not assume, guestimate or imply these issues. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the paragraph from The Venture of Islam, Volume 2; "The process of political fragmentation had gone farther in Syria than almost anywhere else: in the last decade of the eleventh century almost every important town had come to have its independent amir, only nominally under the primacy of a Seljukid prince whose effective power was limited to Aleppo. The amirs were jealous of each other but doubly jealous of any outside interference from Iraq or Iran. When there swept in upon them the troops from the Western allies of the Byzantine empire, they could plan almost no united defense; each amir held out in his own town in the hope that sooner or later the storm would blow over and the unexpected show of initiative from the Christian power would burn itself out. One by on some of the most important towns fell.".
As I stated earlier, nothing is said about Malik-shah, nothing about his death or the subsequent chaos following his death. Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday wishes...

Happy Holidays
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 17:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

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 here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell

Was there a consensus for this move? I saw nothing but "oppose" but move went through anyway? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC). =[reply]

See Canadian Parliamentary Motion 37/1-1205

Don't know what happened here, but it appears to be a "midnight" move when no one was watching. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Adam, I was wondering if there's anything else you'd like me to address at the FAC? Or if not, would you be willing to change your "Comment" to "Support"? --Elonka 17:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

Papal bull

Hi Adam, could I ask you for help on tracking down a papal bull? I'm trying to find the name of the papal bull that was issued (probably in 1268 by Pope Clement IV) about Isabella of Ibelin, Queen of Cyprus. There's a ref for it in Hill's A History of Cyprus, p. 157, but I'm not sure where to go from there: "Jordan, Reg. de Clem. IV, nos. 865, 866", which I assume means Edouard Jordon, "Registres de Clement IV". Worldcat says there are some copies in France,[6] but I'm wondering if there's something more accessible that I could check. Any suggestions for online databases? --Elonka 05:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! Found 'em, deep in the stacks at Pius Library. I've transcribed the Latin for Audi filia et at Wikisource, here: wikisource:la:Audi filia et, and created a placeholder page on the English version, here: wikisource:Audi filia et, ready for you to give it a better translation. I'll let you know when I have De sinu patris transcribed as well. --Elonka 07:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll get started. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Adam Bishop. You have new messages at Elonka's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Steve Sexton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richmond Hill High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Adam Bishop,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request

Hey, I found you listed on the list of Wikipedians fluent in French. Can you give me a translation of the following:

Braquehais participe cependant à la naissance du photojournalisme par l’originalité de sa production qui comporte au total près de 140 clichés de la Commune.

The original source is here, and it will be used for the Bruno Braquehais article.

Thanks,

Bms4880 (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Latin

Hi, there! I've noticed that You're good at Latin and thus I decided to ask you for help. A friend of mine says that my translation of this vulgar inscription (published in: C. I. L. III 9860) isn't correct and I would like to know is it so.

Judex datus a Flavio Valerio Constantio (viro clarissimo?) P(residi) P(rovinciae) Delm(atie) finis inter Salviatas et Stridonenses determinavit.

A judge given by Flavius Valerius Constantius, a very famous man (who is) a governor of Damlatia, have determined the borders between the Salviatae (inhabitants of the municipium of Salvium) and the Stridonians.

Sincerely, Epaminonda--Ἐπαμεινώνδας (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help! :) All the best!--Ἐπαμεινώνδας (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seymouria Vandal

Gday mate, as an admin could you please warn the user about his disruptions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xenoqwarf1. Thankyou Enlil Ninlil (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Long time, no talk. (Life direction's changed a bit, don't really have the time or expertise nowadays to keep up with Armenian Cilicia etc.) Anyway, I hope your current position is going well, but I wanted to point out Hisnrh (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log); a bit self-promotional, but the edits look useful. I don't know if she'd appreciate word from a fellow academic. Best, Choess (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually that disturbed by the promotional aspect...the content seems (you could judge better than I) relevant and not particularly unbalanced, and as you just implied, having your work cited in Wikipedia multiple times and a euro will get you a baguette (but won't move the needle at ISI). And it's a bit of a pleasant shock to see polished writing showing up in one's watchlist that isn't presumptively copyvio! Choess (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Amalric I of Jerusalem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Baldwin III and Nur ad-Din
Baldwin III of Jerusalem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Nur ad-Din

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: Battle of Vimy Ridge

This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Vimy Ridge know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 9, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 9, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

A 6-inch naval gun on a "Percy Scott" carriage, firing over Vimy Ridge behind Canadian lines at night

The Battle of Vimy Ridge was a First World War battle in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region of France between four divisions of the Canadian Corps and three divisions of the German Sixth Army. It lasted from 9 to 12 April 1917, as part of the opening phase of the British-led Battle of Arras, a diversionary attack for the French Nivelle Offensive. The Canadian objective was to take the German-held high ground along an escarpment at the northern end of the offensive. Supported by a creeping barrage, the Canadians captured most of the ridge on 9 April. The town of Thélus fell on the 10th, as did the crest of the ridge once the Canadians overcame a salient of considerable German resistance. The final objective, a fortified knoll near Givenchy-en-Gohelle, fell to the Canadians on 12 April, and the Germans retreated to the Oppy–Méricourt line. Canadian success is attributed to technical and tactical innovations, meticulous planning and training, and powerful artillery support, and the failure of the Germans to properly apply their new defensive doctrine. For the first time all four divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force fought together and the battle remains a Canadian symbol of achievement and sacrifice; the battleground now contains the Canadian National Vimy Memorial. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gouffier of Lastours

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notion

I'm not trying to POV-pushing (Khwarazmian dynasty) but to restore version before User:BozokluAdam came. There's high possibility he's a SP, I've noticed other admins about it. Cheers. --109.165.190.219 (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sockpuppet or etc. Administrators can check all my IPs and edits. It's the first time that I signed up Wikipedia. And I said before, I'm a Turcologist who is mainly interested in Turkic history, culture and languages. Therefore, I want to contribute to the articles related to Turkic history, culture and people. And my resources are reliable and published on Google Books. I also discussed my changes on Talk pages and make explanation for their verifiability. You can check them. In the meantime, I'm suspicious of unregistered user 109.165.190.219 whether s/he might be of a sockpuppet? Thanks in advance. BozokluAdam (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Babur, References

Can you please check the Talk page of Babur, please? A few editors claim that the sources added by me aren't reliable whereas they don't provide any (reliable or unreliable) dissenting sources. And they just undo the changes, and delete the resources. According to the concept of Wikipedia, I'm sure that the sources added by me are reliable ones. I explained them on Talk page as well. Please check the following pages and make a decision as a neutral person to arbitrate this disagreement. I'm tired of that: Talk:Babur#Babur.27s_Ethnicity_with_Reputable_Resources and Talk:Babur#Copyvio_in_the_lead. Regards. BozokluAdam (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of Constantinople

yes! I was just self-reverting when you beat me to it. d'oh! DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Any Info

Good day sir! Just a minor question, do you have any source of how Joan of Arc was apparently, inspired by Joanna of Flanders? If not thank you.--GoShow (...............) 16:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimate children

Hello Adam Bishop!

I recently posted a question on The Reference-desk about the rights of acknowledged illegitimate children in Ancien Regime France. You seem to have knowledge in the question and participated, but the question has now been archived, and perhaps you did not have time to see that I specified it on your request, which may make it easier (or perhaps more interesting?) to answer, as you did ask for a clarification, I thought that it would help.

The situation is as follows:

a married French nobleman in the 1730s, who has two sons with his wife, also has two sons with his acknowledged actress-mistress, and one daughter from a secret affair with an unmarried noblewoman who has runaway from her family and secretly lives on an allowance from him. The nobleman (he is a marquess) choose to recognise all three of his own free will and have them brought up on his expense.

My question is: was it possible for him to recognise them legally in some way, was there a procedure? I have read that Louis XIV had some sort of declaration made when he acknowledged his "bastards" with Montespan. And: did the acknowledgement in itself give them some sort of rights or informal social status? Was the situation of the daughter different in some way, because her mother was noble?

I you have an answer, I would be very grateful if you would be willing to help - actually, this does have some real importance to me. Thank you very much!--Aciram (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your answer on my question of Illegitimate children! I am sorry for my late reply. I thank you for your tip, and I will ask User:John Kenney if he/she would be willing to help. What I am specifically interested in is this: you say that it was possible for a father to acknowledge his illegitimate children, and that he would thereafter be recognized as their father - in they eyes of the law?
My question is, then, what did he actually do to "acknowledge" them? How did he go about in performing this acknowledgement juridically? Was this a legal act in some way, as he was afterwards recognized as their father? Was there paperwork of some sort?
Or was this acknowledgement simply a completely informal affair, with only social importance and no juridical acknowledgement or paperwork what so ever? My question whether the case of the daughter was different was caused by the fact that the law was after all different for nobles and no nobles, but perhaps she would not be considered to be noble.
There is one other matter, and perhaps the law was the same in this case no matter time period: A woman was during this period placed under the guardianship under the nearest male relative, was she not? Then who would be guardian of the daughter in this case? I suppose the father, because he acknowledged her, but afterwards? Would it be her (legitimate) half brother, because he was the eldest male relative after the death of their father?
I thought I should ask just in case you had more to add after this. Thank you very much!--Aciram (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your helpful answers! I miss you on this page [[7]]. But I do believe that we are in agreement. I have begun the first changes of the article. Please give me moral support if necessary. Could I ask you to change the title of the article to "Women in ACTIVE warfare in the medieval era"? --Aciram (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerusalemcrusades.jpeg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jerusalemcrusades.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename request on la.wikipedia

Hello Adam, there is a rename request pending on your la.wikipedia talk page. Thank you! --UV (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins elected on la.wikipedia

Hello Adam, three new admins were elected on la.wikipedia, see the elections page. Could you please grant la:User:Mattie, la:User:Neander and la:User:Amahoney admin rights? Thank you! --UV (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Claim That Someone Made Up What Was Said On Three Different wikipedia Articles.

Your saying that one person made all this up. That's not what everyone else told me. What prove do you have that this guy made the edit. Why dont you just shut up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Want To Know Why

I never said I dont believe It's a lie. I want to know where they got the source. So I can read as proof. There are three different articles that say Zeus returned the Cyclops from Hades. They did'nt say he restored them to life. It's not just the Cyclops page that said this. Your helping me by being negitive.

vvvvvvvvvv

Stop talking to me I think your a lier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me Again One More Thing.

I dont believe what Gold Dragon put was a lie. Because two other's put that infromation in. One earlier then him. What I been asking for is the source. I'm not trying to dissprove what they said to me. I'm trying to prove it to my self. And I never told you to take that off the Cyclops page. Put that back. What you did to me was insault me. Which is why I got angry. I'm not saying the article is not true. I'm asking for the source and no one is telling me it.

Listen

Listen to yourself. You sound like a 16 year old. That's why I got angry. Sorry about snaping on you. I read on Wiki Doc on Aslcepius. These contributer's are still working. The guy that wrote Asclepius told me he read it somewhere but he didnt tell me where. Sorry about calling you a lier. But your not helping me. I read this in the past on a Greek Mythology website. However the site is. Not their anymore. The Cyclopes soul's still live under the volcano mount Etna. I know that. Stop argueing with me.

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete my contributions to the Ref Desk

[8]

If you disagree, the proper action is to list the reasons you disagree and present any evidence you have. Deleting statements you disagree with is completely unacceptable behavior.

This is clearly against the rules. You have been warned. Repeating this action will result in a request for Administrative actions against you. StuRat (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Why don't you just stick to the desks where you actually know something, whichever ones those might be? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are an Admin. I can't imagine how that ever happened, as Admins are supposed to know the rules and follow them. You appear to be completely unqualified for that position and should be removed from that post immediately. Looking through your contributions, I see you regularly delete large, non-trolling posts to articles without explanation. This is also unacceptable.
And, you don't even say what is wrong with my posts, much less prove that they are wrong. Also completely unacceptable behavior in an editor, much less an Admin. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if I started answering questions on the computer or math desks. I took some math classes in high school; surely I am qualified to answer those questions. Of course, that would simply annoy people, because anything I could say would be so nonsensical that it would not even be wrong. The same is true for your posts on the Humanities desk. Deleting them can only benefit the project. (And being an admin doesn't seem relevant here...I actually spent the few seconds to undo your edits the old fashioned way.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can you be so completely unfamiliar with the rules against deleting posts on non-article pages ? You can't simple delete comments because you disagree. This is one of the most basic rules of Wikipedia behavior, and yet you seem to be completely ignorant of it. What would the Ref Desk, and the rest of the non-article pages, be like if everyone did that ? Nothing but constant edit wars. Use a little common sense.
Also, how incredibly rude you are to delete long contributions to article pages without even the least effort to comment on why you deleted it. How would you feel if your contributions were treated like that ? StuRat (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you exercised a little common sense yourself and stopped posting ridiculous answers to the humanities desk, we wouldn't have this problem. Also, troll posts are deleted all the time. I think I'm being rather generous in suggesting you're trolling, rather than the other possibility. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what "the other possibility" is, but you seem to define any post you disagree with as "trolling". That's not what it means, it refers to a post intended to cause disruption, and my posts certainly aren't that. I have yet to see anything from you on what you disagree with and why, much less why you think they are trolling. I suggest you read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith before mislabeling anyone else as a troll. StuRat (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One other possibility, of course, is that you're an idiot. (You're probably not an idiot.) Thanks for the lecture on policy; I've only been an admin for 10 years, I guess I'm still getting used to this whole Wikipedia thing. If you are so inclined, you can raise your concerns somewhere more public. I'm not sure what we're accomplishing this way. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you don't continue to delete anything you disagree with and label it trolling, and refrain from personal attacks, then we've accomplished quite a bit here. However, if you continue to do so, then, yes, I will need to escalate. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Compte global

Bonjour Adam Bishop j'aimerais pouvoir unifier ce compte Argosy toutefois il reste entre autre ce compte qui n'a aucune contributions sur Wikipedia en langue latine qui ne me permettrait pas jusqu'a maintenant d'effectuer ce type d'opération. Merci beaucoup pour votre aide. Cordialement. Argosy (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Argosy, j'ai renommé l'autre Argosy. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Adam Bishop. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

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 and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi! How are you? Thank you for replying to my Titanic question. But I need your help again. I created Category:Deaths from hypertension because one of the Titanic officers died of hypertension. But he's the only one listed there. Was I right to create the category or it should be deleted? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LucienBOT on la.wikipedia

Hello Adam, la:Usor:LucienBOT has been nearly inactive over the last months. Could you please remove the bot flag, to be on the safe side? Thank you in advance! --UV (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam_Bishop/archive11&oldid=521260992"