Talk:House of Lusignan
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The king of England who died in 1999, and thus was succeeded by at that point, was Richard Lionheart, NOT Henry II who died already in 1180's AND was succeeded by Richard. Thus, the article should be corrected. Sadly, a VANDAL using the username Drini made a revert where that correction was overruled. I hereby request that Drini be enjoined from all sorts of vandalism in the future. 22.214.171.124 03:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Again, this is obviously not vandalism. By the way, people would probably be less inclined to revert you if you had a username (and I'll keep mentioning it until you get one :)). Adam Bishop 05:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The reverter did not give the reasons for reversion in this talk page, therefore such act is vandalism. It disturbs the work of others, who apparently are better experts in the matter than Drini.
As to your persistent cry for me to bother with an username, the answer remains the same: no. You should stop repeating it. 126.96.36.199 09:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think you are being a little irrational. If I was wrong in the succesor of such king, then it can be undone easily as I just did. And as stated on Wikipedia:Vandalism: Vandalism is indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. I did not act in bad faith, nor I made a deliberate attempt to compromise the encyclopedia. I just undid the changes (which you could have easily done), because to err is human. No need to cry foul nor calling names. drini ☎ 15:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that it may be useless for me to revert after a reversion made by another. That resembles too much an edit war in my opinion. The possible result is that the original reverter soon reverts it back, and so on. That's something I want to avoid. (And, I don't want to spend time in edit wars. If someone is persistent enough to want wrongful information back, I will finally give up. After all, I have better things to do in my life than being persistent myself in Wikipedia, where it is open season for even crazies to persist in whatever is their specific passion.) Much better to have the original reverter to understand his mistake, after which an edit war is probably avoided.
You deny bad faith and deliberateness. I am not going to misuse my time trying to find evidence or indications of the contrary. I know that even criminals sometimes avoid punishments by denying the intent. And I know that sometimes people do wrong things without intent. Between these two possibilities, falls the truth in this matter, too.
If a wrongful quick reversion, without deliberate intent to compromise, is not vandalism, what is then the correct name for it? Thoughtlessness? Stupidity? Conservatism? Carelessness? Bullying? Ignorance? Negligence? Sloppiness? In my opinion, it is simply not an error. As the perpetrator knew the correct piece of information, and yet decided to remove it. Perhaps not realizing its value, but at least had opportunities to check it out and arrive at the truth in the matter. Would it be "unpremeditated vandalism"?
However, as it is clear that your reversion was not correct, it leaves some milder rebukes, which I present as questions (though their answers may be self-evident: Are you in any way an expert of medieval history? Did you know, when making the reversion, who was the King of England who died in 1199? Did you stop to check relevant facts on the matter when you made the reversion? 188.8.131.52 08:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Holy crap man, calm down. No wonder people revert you. Besides, since Arthur was Henry's grandson, and Richard and John were Henry's sons, they were all heirs of Henry, not of Richard, wouldn't you say? Adam Bishop 14:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've edited again to say that the date of Guy's arrival in Jerusalem is unknown (unless it is 1180): I think that is definitely true, but if anyone knows of a document he witnessed in Jerusalem before 1180, I will withdraw in confusion. Andrew Dalby http://perso.wanadoo.fr/dalby/ 21:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The image of Melusine Tower has nothing to do with Lusignan Castle, and is by no means the only remains of it (which was originally stated by someone). That tower currently stands at the village of Vouvant, quite far from Lusignan. The village was owned by the Lusignans, but it is not the remains of their once grand Chateau.
Lusignan family still lives on
The family did not die out. After they lost their kingdom, the family has lived on as merchants in the ottoman city of Izmir (smyrna) for centuries. They were known as "mirri" family. In 1960's, the family migrated to belgium. The Last one, Alessandro Mirri de Lusignan, was EU Morocco representative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Move to House of Lusignan
Most European royal houses are titled, for example, House of Plantagenet, instead of Plantagenet Dynasty. For sake of consistency it should be changed.220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)