User talk:Srnec

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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:Srnec/DYK

Contents

Clarification[edit]

Hi. I am just wondering why you feel that an infobox is unnecessary for Raymond IV of Pallars Jussà? Every biography I have worked on has had one and I find them very useful for getting a quick overview of the person in question. I thought the infobox, even with limited information, was quite useful as a reader, especially since the article is not organised in any way.Staranise (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel that infoboxes are generally unnecessary. There is certainly no requirement that articles have them, and no consensus on when they are appropriate. There are many editors who believe they are of limited use except in certain cases, and many editors who feel that all articles ought to have them. There is no consensus, but the onus is always on the editor adding to an article to prove the usefulness of his edit.
In biographical articles generally—and in the case of Raymond of Pallars particularly—the infobox contains nothing but genealogical information (parents and children) and data already present in the lede (like vital dates). Why does a list of his folks constitute an "overview of the person in question"? If name and dates is what you're looking for, read the first sentence. Infoboxes distract readers from the actual article and, since notability is not inherited (per our policies), the genealogical information they contain is unrelated to what makes the person notable enough for an article in the first place.
The article is organised, even if it doesn't have headings. The latter can be fixed quite easily (I just did). Srnec (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Catalan culture Challenge[edit]

Hello! I've seen that you are one of the main editors of the Abbot Oliba article and I just want to inform you that the article is featured at the the Catalan Culture Challenge, a Wikipedia editing contest in which victory will go to those who start and improve the greatest number of articles about 50 key figures of Catalan culture. It goes from March 16 to April 15. You can take part by creating or expanding articles on these people in your native language (or any other one you speak). It would be lovely to have you on board. :-) Amical Wikimedia --Kippelboy (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gales of Dampierre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dampierre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We've gotten off on the wrong foot[edit]

I think we have gotten off on the wrong foot. You said this on the history page of the "Italian governorate of Montenegro" article: "here's how it's done - and since you have read the talk page, your question about sources is disingenuous". Why are you engaging in such attacks against me? I said that multiple claims in the article need sources, I thought that was fine considering that the page has few sources. No I have not read the entirety of the talk page. The issue is that the claims made in the article need references to support them.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A tag atop the article says, "This article needs additional citations for verification." So why does it need "citation needed" tags throughout? It has one big "citations needed" tag at the top.
In your first edit summary, you wrote, "There are no citations for many of assertions made here. From the talk page, it appears that the users agreed to use this name as some kind of compromise - that does not make it the legal name of this entity. This is not acceptable." Since you are aware of the recent talk page discussion about the title, it is disingenuous to ask in a later edit summary, "What sources say that it was named as shown?"—because the sources were presented on the talk page. Should they be added to the article, and the issue of naming cleard up? Absolutely, but the tag at the top already does the job of a million little tags. And since you read the talk page, you could add the sources used yourself if you were motivated. The sources used in the previous version of the article do not show that "Independent State of Montenegro" was the name of Montenegro under Italian rule. More sources are needed on the issue of naming, but since Montenegro was undoubtedly governed by Italy and was not an independent state, the current title is best. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014[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, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Troupes coloniales may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • empire. This force played a substantial role in the conquest of the empire, in [[World War I]], [[[World War II]], the [[First Indochina War]] and the [[Algerian War]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:French intervention in Mexico infobox[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:French intervention in Mexico infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 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.

Austro-Hungarian campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to 5th Corps, 3rd Corps, 4th Corps, Hafiz Pasha, Novi Grad, Kostajnica and Gradiška
Othon de la Roche (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Livadia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Median lethal dose[edit]

My apologies, I only meant to take out the "commonly due to allergic reactions" in regards to cases of rapid death time (20-30 mins). This was added by a disruptive IP editor before I had the article protected. I've never read a case in which a mamba victim died due to allergic reaction. In anycase, I added the median lethal dose link back into the lead. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 21:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rodrigo Fernández de Castro, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Battle of Uclés, Ávila and Almonacid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aurunca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Festus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

French Somaliland in WWII[edit]

Hi Srnec,

Really good job with the re-write at French Somaliland in World War II! I hope you don't mind, but I have tweaked the title to "in" rather than your original "during" to comply with the general trend in similar articles (see the template at the bottom). All the best! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I belatedly saw this message after leaving a message on the talk page. Personally, I prefer "during" for the reasons I state there. But thank you! There is still information to add, if I can track it down in reliable sources. There is very little I can find about the "air war" during June 1940 that I believe occurred. Srnec (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Titles in titles of articles[edit]

Hello Srnec, I've busy in other projects but before that, and whenever I can, I've been moving some of the articles on Portuguese royals/nobles when the title of the article per se is something like, Infante SoandSo, count of... . I think we should have some clear guidelines and not just discussions in a wikiproject. All of these I think should be "standardized". I would opt for dates after the name whenever possible John of Portugal (1300-1350), but if these dates are not confirmed, perhaps something like, John of Portugal, Count of Viseu (I'm inventing the names right now). There is so much confusion with all of these Portuguese nobles and trying to find them is quite difficult. I would definitely delete the nobility/royal titles from the title of the article. What do you think? Regards, --Maragm (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I would also prefer dates, but there seems to be a consensus against them (except where there is no other option). If you move enough articles to dates, you can expect pushback. In this case, however, there might be an argument that dates are the least confusing option. Titles preceding the name (like Infante) should definitely go, but titles (like Count of Viseu) that come after the name, separated by a comma or in parentheses, are acceptable. If there were more than one "John of Portugal, Count of Viseu", then dates would be preferrable or, if there is some other distinguishing mark, then perhaps a parenthetical disambiguator like "John of Portugal (historian)"—obviously, I'm making this up. Srnec (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go over the articles when I have free time and move as per your indications, putting the dates as a last resource. The other thing I forgot to mention is prince/ess vs. infante/a. Most, if not all sources on Spanish/Portuguese royals, call them infantes and I see that some of the Portuguese royals have been called prince/ess. I'm not sure about the more modern ones, but I think all those from the Middle Ages should be called infantes, particularly in the title of the article. --Maragm (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French Somaliland in World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fighting France (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) 08:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014[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) 14:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Our interaction etc.[edit]

It seems we have both been around for years and years, but I think we started to interact only recently. This interaction has been fruitful in some instances, I seem to remember that we collaborated well in Crimea topics when these articles were in crisis.

So I would now want to seek reasonable discussion before we begin to waste effort in editorial disputes over what amounts more to questions of content arrangement than actual content.

I pay you the compliment of treating you as a well-educated, grown up editor. In our recent discussion on Talk:Kingdom of France, I agree completely with the factual points you raise, and I am perfectly willing to be influenced by your opinion. I am in complete agreement with your elaboration on the development of "statehood" here,

If the kingdom of France did not exist in 843—which in one important sense (the concept of France) I am willing to admit—then when did it come to be? Well before 987. Even after the events 887–88 (deposition and death of Charles the Fat), the French kingdom remained in tact: Aquitaine recognised the authority of the same king as Neustria. What might well have seemed likely to be ephemeral in 843 had become permanent within a generation.

This is of course the problem we will have with each and every article on "states", or polilitical entities, or "former countries", or whatever you want to call it, in pre-modern times. And not only pre-modern, as evidenced in the case of Crimea, Kosovo, etc., unlike the mere declaration of statehood (which can be done by any group of people sitting in a room), the "existence" of a state is not something that can be pinned down exactly.

This is not a problem, as long as everyone remains aware of the fuzzy nature of the terms involved in all of this. The problem with Wikipedia is that many involved editors either do not, or else choose to use this fuziness selectively because they have an agenda.

I propose that both you and I have the great benefit of being aware of the nature of the problem, and are not burdened by a political agenda. This means that our collaboration would be of high value to the articles affected. Because of this, I would want to avoid if at all possible that we end up wasting time and our nerves over pointess disputes on presentation.

Which brings me to the "infobox" question. I am the last person to have fixed opinion on infoboxes, and I do think that they are often part of the problem, especially when they suggest clean "cut off dates" for historical periods. But we already know that these cut-off dates are editorial choices. Kingdom of France has an infobox suggesting a "cut off" in 843. We both know that this is arbitrary, but we also know that any other date will be at least as arbitrary, and that if we want to have meaningful coverage on historical periods, there is no way around choosing such cut off dates regardless. These are editorial decisions which should be taken after informed discussion just like the one we had about France.

Now you brought up the template name of "Former Country". Can we please agree that this is a red herring? This is just what the template in question happens to be named internally. The template is in wide use to simply cover meaningful historical periods. As in the articles on the history of the Byzantine Empire, such as Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty (etc.) Nobody claims that the "Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty" was a "former country" in the sense that there was no continuity, or a complete replacement of governance or statehood between it and either the Byzantine Empire under the Isaurian dynasty or the Byzantine Empire under the Komnenos dynasty. It is still meaningful to break up the main Byzantine Empire article into such articles on historical periods.

The longer and more complicated the history of a state or empire, the more important it will be to maintain a clean division of articles on such sub-periods. The Byzantine Empire is an excellent example for this, because its history is literally "byzantine". But the same principle applies to any monarchy lasting for centuries on end, including the Kingdom of Portugal and the Kingdom of France, etc. etc. Case in point, in my recent efforts in cleaning up Iberian topics have "discovered" an article on Spain in the 17th century which has been around since 2011, but which has remained completly unlinked, and thus unnoted, in its WP:SS "super-topics" of both Habsburg Spain and History of Spain. Content duplication is one of the serious problems when trying to maintain large topics like "History of $COUNTRY", and a clean division into historical periods which are cleanly linked to one another is a way to reduce it. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a problem, as long as everyone remains aware of the fuzzy nature of the terms involved in all of this. The problem with Wikipedia is that many involved editors either do not, or else choose to use this fuzziness selectively because they have an agenda.
I agree. This is why it can be difficult to adjudicate any disputes by appealing to sources. Academics do not have to worry as much about such matters. But it is more than just some editors who might not understand fuzziness (perhaps because of an agenda)—our readers may not get it either, and they are likely to be less informed or educated than ourselves.
I propose that both you and I have the great benefit of being aware of the nature of the problem, and are not burdened by a political agenda.
I agree. I claim no political agenda, and I don't see on in your edits either.
But we already know that these cut-off dates are editorial choices. Kingdom of France has an infobox suggesting a "cut off" in 843. We both know that this is arbitrary, but we also know that any other date will be at least as arbitrary, and that if we want to have meaningful coverage on historical periods, there is no way around choosing such cut off dates regardless.
I would not agree on the equality of arbitrariness. (I'm not sure "arbitrary" is even the right word here.) The formation of the kingdom of France was a process that is not completely understood nor can be on existing evidence, but we do know quite a bit about what was done (and when) to bring it about. The date of 843 is essentially the earliest date on which the geographical entity that would become known France came into being under one king. I regard that as making an excellent start date—although it does not represent when the notion of "France" came into being. It is also important to note that no subsequent event reversed that of 843: the same division of Europe (roughly) under a succession of monarchs existed down to the revolution.
Now you brought up the template name of "Former Country". Can we please agree that this is a red herring? This is just what the template in question happens to be named internally. The template is in wide use to simply cover meaningful historical periods.
Yes, the template name itself doesn't matter. But it wasn't named arbitarily. I suspect readers will sometimes (often?) be misled into thinking that the dates we have chosen for dividing our coverage represent points of constitutional change.
It is still meaningful to break up the main Byzantine Empire article into such articles on historical periods.
I have no problem with that—but I think the infobox format suggests a kind of succession of constitutions or states, much the same way "First Spanish Republic" and "Third French Republic" do. Why use the same inobox for two very different purposes? Srnec (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

India[edit]

Hi, nice to see you again.

There is a consensus to include India in the puppet & client category, as shown by the archive. If you want to revert, please address the arguments there, either here, on the article talk page, or on my talk page. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 01:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That short discussion does not at all represent consensus. Look at various recent edit summaries to see that. Srnec (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
What recent? You removed "clients & puppets" 3 months ago. walk victor falk talk 02:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
An attempt to list India as a colony was reverted recently by another editor. How does a talk between you and one other editor represent a consensus? Srnec (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

WWII infobox[edit]

As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 03:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:France_during_World_War_II[edit]

Did you check the talk page? walk victor falk talk 23:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Not assuming you didn't, just curious about your opinion about people's opinion that there should be an article. walk victor falk talk 23:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to an article. The topic, however, is huge. This is not the way to tackle the job. I would be happy to help in any way I can on improving our coverage of France in World War II and/or by building this article—but I am going to be away for the next couple weeks, so I can't do anything in the immediate future. Srnec (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014[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) 22:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Page numbers[edit]

Hi Srnec,

Would you by any chance have some page numbers to add to your cites on French prisoners of war in World War II? I don't have access to the source. All the best! Brigade Piron (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not. I do not have access to the PDF or print version of the Rochat article, but I did link to an online version, which can be cited by paragraph (but I don't know how to do that with "sfn" footnotes). The online version is free; the link is in the bibliography. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You've been.....[edit]

...reported and I see that you were not notified. Cheers, --Maragm (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A belated thanks for the notification. It seems it was speedily dealt with. Srnec (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome...next thing, I'll be accused of being your sockpuppet. By the way, I wanted to mention that in the article on Fernando Rodríguez de Castro, Martín is mentioned as a legitimate son, but he was not. You can check the Spanish version where I added as a reference, Menéndez Pidal, which can be checked online. In a donation made in 1241, Pedro Martínez declares that he is the son of Martín Fernández, grandson of Fernán Roiz el Castellano, and donates a property which he had inherited from María Íñiguez, his grandmother and mother of his father Martín. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014[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) 15:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


World War 2 info box change[edit]

There is a discussion about belligerents order for WWII in the talk page [2] which challenge previous consensus. Based on this discussion, some editors changed the Template:WW2InfoBox. Current change (infobox) are ranking USA above United Kingdom, ranking France above China and adding the leaders of Romania and Hungary into Info box. I thought you should know, as you seem to join the previous discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.172.57 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Muslim conquests[edit]

Hey, Srnec, I was wondering whether you could possibly offer your input on the recent changes - and reverts of those changes - on the Muslim conquests article. Thank you very much for your time. Torontas (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Muslim Conquests[edit]

Thanks for the source! JSTOR? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Battle of Yarmuk one, yes. F. M. Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton: 1981), 185, states that the main point of Khalid's campaigning in Iraq was the subjugation of the Christian tribes along the Euphrates. It's quite confusing, though, to match sources up on account of the varying transliterations of Arabic place names and the sometimes confused chronology of the primary sources. I can find no mention of Firaz in Donner, but it is clear (just like in that US military publication I linked to) that they are talking about the same action: Khalid's last before moving out of Iraq. Srnec (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Very nice. Oddly, Pourshariati states Al-Muthanna was at Firaz(Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire, p201-202), not Khalid. Go figure. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Anglo-American bias against the Italian war effort[edit]

Hi Srnec,

I suggest you read James Sadkovich and more recent authors. Can I email you a sample of some of his work? Forget about Seca. There is a strong historiography against the Italians. There are clear double standards to the point where their successes are turned into failures, where they are criticized relentlessly in every conceivable way, and their failures are amplified out of all proportion. Now rest assured that if the Italians were actually fighting on the side of the allies, the eventual victors, then there would have been a flood of praise for Italy from historians, where modest victories would be rewritten as great ones, and Italian defeats would have been quietly hushed up or glossed over.

Even when Italy eventually occupy two-thirds of Greece and its islands, even this is seen as a "failure" because their allies, the Germans, helped them out. Using this yard-stick, the British should be measured as failures too because they had the Americans get them out of a hole of their own making in North Africa, and the Russians helping them tying up 90% of the German army and air force. So whatever victories the British may have had, if we use the same yardstick that is used for the Italians, are really questionable indeed.AnnalesSchool (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read James Sadkovich and more recent authors. Can I email you a sample of some of his work? Forget about Seca.
I am familiar with Sadkovich and have access to many of his papers, but none of his books. I've read some of him, and some reviews of his books. If you have something you do not think I have access to, you may email it to me. My email should be enabled.
Forget about Seca.
My concern with the Italian invasion of France article is to get the actual battle fleshed out in detail. I have no reason to believe Seca will get his facts wrong about that.
There is a strong historiography against the Italians.
I completely agree. I think it is mainly a legacy of wartime British propaganda (portraying the Italians as incompetents next to the evil Germans). I can't really blame the British for this, though.
Using this yard-stick, the British should be measured as failures too because they had the Americans get them out of a hole of their own making in North Africa, and the Russians helping them tying up 90% of the German army and air force.
The British often do get overlooked in American historiography (my impression). The British feat in keeping alive in 1940–41 is quite impressive. British defeat Asia in 1941–42 is as bad as anything the Italian suffered. Srnec (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War of the Cow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walloon (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) 08:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Srnec, Thanks for your help with the cleanups around the House of Savoy, particularly on the references. I'll try to learn from your examples to do it better in the future. Also, thanks for the tip on Garsenda, I've reverted my changes that I had made. 1bandsaw (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 5 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Agnes of Aquitaine[edit]

Europaische Stammtafeln has the wife of Ramiro as an illegitimate daughter of the Duke of Aquitaine, not the one who married the count of Thouars. I'd love to see your sources, the article isn't well referenced. Suggest we discuss on talk page. 24.27.2.204 (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thai royal and noble titles[edit]

You are the last registered user to amend the current article, which, absent a good reason not to, I intend to revert to my version of 14:34, 16 September 2013‎. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. Just restore the hatnote. Srnec (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fernando García de Hita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry of Portugal. 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) 08:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3[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.

Bertrand du Guesclin
added a link pointing to Bougie
Rangoon riots (1930)
added a link pointing to Strike

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Lets discuss your proposed merger.[edit]

Talk:Prisoner in the Vatican#Merge. Clr324 04:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clr324 (talkcontribs)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean de Werchin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ballade. 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) 09:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014[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) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Legislative Assembly double[edit]

Hi, there are 2 articles on the same subject Louis XVI and the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Assembly (France). Could it be done something about that? I think you have some knowledge and experience in such things. Definitely it is better to have just one, I think. All the best!--Nivose (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(2nd) Siege of Coria[edit]

Hi, Srnec! First I want to thank you for your insightul and extremely detailed articles in medieval Europe. I am traslating your Siege of Coria (1142) article into spanish (here), and I've 2 things to question:

  1. When the text refers to "the sucessful 1141 siege"... Could it actually mean 1142? (the year of the siege)
  2. According to online sources (Miranda Calvo 120-121) I've handled Coria was taken in 1079 by Alfonso VI before (not after) the reconquista of Toledo in 1085 (to fall afterwards (circa 1110-1113), as the wiki article says after the death of Alfonso in 1109) .

Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Three times the article said "1141" when it meant "1142". I checked the sources and it must just be a bad typo. I have corrected all instances to "1142".
You are also right about the date of the first conquest of Coria (1079, at the beginning of the series of conquests culminating with Toledo in 1085, not after). I've corrected this in the article as well. It's always good to have my mistakes caught. Srnec (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Notitia de servitio monasteriorum[edit]

Your correction to the Savigny monastery seems correct, but why the Schönau one? The Schönau you picked is even further from Bavaria than the one linked. Lesne, the source for the list, places the Schönau in question in the diocese of Ratisbon (Regensburg). Srnec (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Good evening,
Yes, you're right, but Schönau is a cistercian one, created in the beginning of the 12th century. It's why I changed for the other Schönau, witch is benedictine. But you're right when you write that the one I picked isn't in Bavaria. Maybe there's another Schönau I don't know, and therefore I've been wrong. Well, I don't know exactly what to do now... (excuse me for my poor english, I'm French). --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[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.

Rudolf Hellgrewe
added a link pointing to Hermann von Wissmann
Theobald of Étampes
added a link pointing to Royal domain

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suger's Eagle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Porphyry. 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) 09:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[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) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:correcting Ottoman closure of the straits[edit]

I noticed you tweak this on the timeline page of the bugle issue for this month. I feel obliged to notify you that the bulk of that information was lifted from the page Timeline of World War I, so if there was an error in the Bugle page it'll be present on the timeline page as well. Just an FYI. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alloy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Compound and Material. 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) 09:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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 Revolt of the Faitiões, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pataca. 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) 09:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Foreign involvement in Second Boer War[edit]

Srnec, your RFC was not the first time the issue was discussed. Look at some of the sections above it in the talk page. One person suggested putting the info a collapsible section within the infobox. I think that is an excellent compromise. Foreign volunteers are mentioned in numerous war infoboxes throughout Wikipedia. This war even has an entire article devoted to the foreign volunteers in this conflict. The common practice is to list nations which contributed significant volunteers to a conflict. Please allow the info to be added in a collapsible section at least. Toolen (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not common practice, although it has been done. In this case, we settled the dispute by means of an RFC. The problem is that the info is misleading: those nations were not at war in this conflict. If one volunteer were all it took, then the USA could be said to have entered both world wars well before it actually did. Note that Spain is not in the World War II infobox despite the Blue Division. —Srnec (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Royal Road (disambiguation)[edit]

I see that you reverted my disambiguation of El Camino Real with the edit summary (not here). I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you elaborate? -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 23:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is one of four links to pages that are "Royal Road" in a different language. I didn't want the consistency broken and I didn't want the language "(Spanish)" to come right after the English word "disambiguation". One other page, rue Royale is a dab page. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I'll pipe the link through the (disambiguation) redirect instead so it will not break the consistency of the page. This will also prevent others from WP:DPL from changing the link in the future. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 00:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Srnec (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Mitsukurina[edit]

Hello Srnec. Considering your involvement in the Second Boer War article, I thought you might be interested in this. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14[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.

Gutierre Fernández de Castro
added links pointing to Dubbing, Piedras Negras, Calatrava, Valderrama, Tuy, La Rioja, Montes de Oca, Santa Eufemia, New Castile and Ávila
Lombard syllogae
added a link pointing to Syllogae

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014[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) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Treaty of Sangüesa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vilches. 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, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Chronicle of Fredegar[edit]

I struggled with this article as I can read neither Latin nor German. The critical edition by Bruno Krusch (1888) is available on-line but not only the text but also the introduction, comments and annotations are in Latin. The most recent scholarly book on the subject is by Roger Collins (2007) who is at the University of Edinburgh but the book is in German. I would have liked to add a table listing the different manuscripts (as in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle article) but to do this I would need to visit the British Library to access the Collins book. At the moment I'm staying near Avignon and the municipal library (housed in a magnificent medieval building) hasn't a copy. Aa77zz (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

instrumental disambiguation[edit]

Hello, Srnec. I want to praise your effort to improve the instrumentalism article by creating the disambiguation page in November 2008. I find it useful to distinguish a generic meaning in a general article from specialist usages of the name in the disambiguation article.

Can you now help me improve the general article by evaluating a sample of my proposed revisions? I would appreciate feedback on my talk posts numbers 20 and 21 at instrumentalism. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but no promises that I'll comment. (Scientific instrumentalism doesn't have an entry at either SEP or IEP.) Srnec (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Emanuele Sica (2012), "June 1940: The Italian Army and the Battle of the Alps", Canadian Journal of History/Annales canadiennes d'histoire XLVII: 355–78[edit]

Hi, is it possible you could email me a copy of this work to help further develop the Italian invasion of France article? Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Srnec (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Turns out I don't know how to do that ... Srnec (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, not to worry. If possible, could you supplement the comment about the inadequate Italian equipment with information from the source in regards to Sica's comments on winter clothing? I feel that this will help explain (eventually and in part) why there were so many frostbite victims.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Only thing I found was the note I added about the lack of tent flies. Srnec (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Message at Feudal duties[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Srnec. You have new messages at Talk:Feudal duties#Droit du seigneur.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lotharingia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louis IV of Germany. 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) 11:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and a question...[edit]

Hi Srnec, thanks for fixing the "tweaks" in Pedro de Atarés. Just a quick question. I've been referencing and expanding the articles in es.wiki on Portuguese royalty with books that I've purchased plus good articles I found online, e.g. Alfonso I de Portugal, Sancho I, etc. and thought I'd do it here bit by bit when I have time. Is it necessary to use those boxes for their children, such as the one in Sancho I of Portugal? I don't find them aesthetically pleasing and also more complicated than if I just list the children, something I generally do to protect against undocumented additions. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no need to include tables. I agree that they are aesthetically displeasing. Srnec (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James Ormond (administrator) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Earl, appointed him as his deputy in Ireland after the death of Sir [[James Butler]] of Polestown]]; however the appointment was disputed by the latter's son, [[Piers Butler, 8th Earl of Ormond|Sir

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sancho VII of Navarre[edit]

Should this article have a royalty template? Just curious since I usually do not add such things to articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like infoboxes, so I think it's fine without one. It needs more work in general; not an infobox. Srnec (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Just noticed it did not have one, that you had edited the article before and I did not know whether or not that was the norm. No worries. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014[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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the Edit Warring[edit]

Please stop the edit warring on the Axis Powers and WWII Allies pages. You removed a LONG STANDING infobox form the Axis Powers page, without providing any justification. Also, you continue to remove the Infobox from the WWII Allies page which was added to mirror a related article, also this infobox was up for two weeks with other editors making new edits. So, you can't justify its removal as a "revert". At this point you are arbitrarily taking out material you do not like… its that simple. --E-960 (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

These infoboxes are crap. It's that simple. I've opened an RFC. We'll see what others think. Srnec (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Your attitude is crap. Why are you so condescending just because you don't like something? "These infoboxes are crap" is not a valid argument for WP. Can't be simpler than that.--E-960 (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Axis powers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third Republic. 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, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're patrolling the Brittany-related pages[edit]

Any interest in supporting this proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Brittany? or too much overlap with WP:CELTS? — LlywelynII 11:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I really just have a bunch of pages on my watchlist from when I tried to upgrade the articles on the Breton rulers of the Merovingian and Carolingian periods some years ago. I wouldn't be much help to a general project, but thanks for asking. Srnec (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Help with template[edit]

Hello Srnec, I noticed in the article on the Banu Qasi a box or template on Basque History. In it, there are three titles/houses that I don't think should be there, no articles on them and they are definitely not monarchs or royal families. In addition, I don't even think that template should be there since, as far as I know, the Banu Qasi were not Basque, more likely from what later became the kingdoms of Pamplona and Aragón, and I haven't seen any references indicating confirming this supposed origin. I tried to edit, but was unable and don't know how to go about it. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the one of the relatively obscure family and the one of the "counts of Lapurdi" (Labourd, Bayonne), since I can't find anything about any such counts. I left the one about the viscounts of Zuberoa (Soule), since they are at least real. I know that the viscounty is considered "Basque" by some, but the names of its viscounts are not Basque at all—if the list on the French Wikipedia can be trusted. Srnec (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The real origin of the Banu Qasi is tricky and obscure, due to a historic narrative that possibly themselves created in order to enhance their social and political pedigree. (No "Cassius" is attested on contemporary records, as it is well known) It would be odd to think that a Basque claims a "Gothic" descent, i.e. a lord who held an important position in the Visigothic Kingdom. However, this name, Cassius, is not straight Gothic, but Roman, and somewhat unusual for the naming customs of the late 7th century (cf. Collins). A Roman name would make sense for a Basque of that period, not so much a Gothic one, against whom they fought.
The Basques spoke a language they did not write, as pointed very well by Jose María Lacarra, so let's not fall in empty nominalism, and they even used alternative names for prestige and relations with officials of Germanic and Romance language. The Banu Qasi probably spoke Basque, they held family ties with the Enekos (Iñigos, Eneccones...). Whether that was their exact origin or main language, that's another question. Tudela has very few Basque placenames but in 20 km north and west basic nature placenames bear witness to Basque language. At any rate, for further discussion, this belongs to the Banu Qasi article talk. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Boso, Margrave of Tuscany[edit]

Can I ask why did you revert the edit I made on the page, adding a "Family" section? --Daphoenyx (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Why add a heading and bullet points to what was originally just two sentences? It adds a lot of clutter unnecessarily. It's also awkward to make the last bullet point a paragraph long when the first three are mere names. If you have something to add about Boso's other children, please do so. Then, perhaps, it will be worth its own section. Srnec (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bulgarian–Ottoman convention (1915), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aegean. 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) 09:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't post misinformation[edit]

Vichy France declared war on the USSR and USA during WWII. If that's neutrality, you no doubt sufficiently misinterpret our NPOV to make it not apply to you. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You seriously contend that Vichy France was neutral in WWII? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The Vichy gov't was formed after France signed armistices with Germany and Italy. Relations between it and Britain broke down immediately, but there was no such break with most other countries, which continued to recognise Vichy as the legitimate gov't of France until after the Italo-German occupation of southern France and Corsica in November 1942. Technically, France under the Vichy was regime was in a suspended state of war with Germany and Italy—suspended by armistice, awaiting a final peace treaty. It was never actually in a state of war with any other power, although it fought several wars during its brief existence: with Thailand, with Britain in Syria and Madagascar, with the Free French in Gabon and with the Allies in North Africa, not to mention the attacks on Dakar, Gibraltar, Mers-el-Kébir, assistance to Iraq in its war with Britain, and the fighting with Japan in September 1940 and March 1945. At no point did it declare war or have war declared upon it. Nor did it ever adhere to the Tripartite Pact, which is usually regarded as the defining act of the Axis powers. Its situation may be sui generis, but it was not an Axis power and was never treated as one by the Allies. Srnec (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
By that logic, Denmark and Norway, too, were neutral as neither declared war on anyone, nor did the Axis declare war on them. As for treatment during and after the war, the Allies certainly fought Vichy France. Even the government of Australia's website mentions this (strange if Vichy France were neutral).[1] After the war, the treatment of various countries as either Axis or client or whatever differed in ways unrelated to their status: the pre-war government of Poland (ostensibly an Ally) was not allowed to govern by an Ally (USSR); the treatment of Italy changed when it changed sides during the war; the treatment of Vichy France was not very different that the Czechoslovak or Yugoslav governments' treatment of territories that claimed independence during the war (most of the leaders of these various places that could be captured were tried and many executed). That Vichy France was a client state of the Axis is pretty straightforward. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
First, your edit made Vichy out to be an Axis power. This isn't really about whether it was at war with anybody. As I said, it fought several wars, but it was never in a state of war with anybody. It was not—and neither regarded itself as, nor was regard by anybody else as—a belligerent. Second, Denmark was not at war with anybody, no. Norway's case is more complicated, but it regarded itself as and was regarded by its Allies and the United Nations—of which it was a founding member—as at war with Germany. (In fact, I believe Norway did clarify that it was at war with Germany after rejecting the German pseudo-ultimatum on 9 April 1940, but I'll have to dig up a reliable source.) Third, while the treatment of Italy, Romania, Finland, Bulgaria and Hungary changed during the war, all five had to sign peace treaties with the United Nations after the war. France never did. Fourth, that Vichy France was, at least after November 1942, a puppet state is not relevant to whether it was an Axis power or at war with any of the United Nations. Slovakia and Croatia are hardly analogous to Vichy France. The former were not recognised sovereign states by most other sovereign states, but Vichy was France until November 1942, after which it was (in the Allies' eyes) effectively merged with the Free French movement, or else ceased to function independently and lost recognition. Anyway... Why do you insist on its being an Axis belligerent? Srnec (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It was added to "Client states" which it was. You disagree that it was a client state? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it is appropriate to label it as such in the infobox of the Axis powers page. It is misleading. It was not a client state at all prior to November 1942, after which it was more just an occupied state. The authorities in French North and West Africa continued to be Vichyists after the Allies landed. Vichy laws were on the books in Allied territory until well into 1943. Italy and Germany had no control over most of Vichy's colonies. Srnec (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ [1]

Gonzalo Menéndez[edit]

Hello Srnec, I'm writing the article in es.wiki on Gonzalo Menéndez and notice that you have one daughter that I don't have documented (not mentioned by Mattoso or Torres Sevilla), Toda. Not saying it's not correct, just want to know if you have a source for her that I can check and use to add her. Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Back in 2009 I was using Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands Project at times, and sure enough that turns up a mention. It is a useful work, but not a reliable source for citing facts here. He usually cites his sources, but doesn't in this case. I did find, however, what might have been his source: María Inés Carzolio de Rossi, "La gran propiedad laica gallega en el siglo XI", Cuadernos de historia de España, 65–66 (1981): 59–112. I do not have (easy) access to CHE, so I can't check it myself. If you can, please let me know. Srnec (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll look into that and let you know. Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I see the article but don't find where I can download or view it. I see that in Medlands Toda is in brackets which means that it is an assumption. I don't think it's right since I think that Rodrigo Ordóñez, the supposed husband of a Toda, came later. I have to investigate further but Menendo's son Ramiro married Toda Vela and one of their sons was Ordoño Ramírez, married to Elvira, who would be the father of the Rodrigo Ordóñez married to a Toda. Like I said, I'll continue to investigate and let you know. --Maragm (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014[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) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

074 Frontal d'altar de Mosoll, els Reis d'Orient.jpg 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 15:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Ealdgyth. A merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year to you! Srnec (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Pseudo-Apuleius and his Herbarius[edit]

Hello Srnec. I have finished merging Herbarium Apuleii Platonici into Pseudo-Apuleius. For finishing all I have no tools and no experience. Thank you very much and best wishes. --Michael Eyl (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Velas[edit]

Hello Srnec, can you please take a look at this and also the talk page? I have added sourced info on the Basque origin of Velaz and another user keeps reverting, preferring the Visigothic origin, totally undocumented in primary sources, of this lineage. Many thanks, and Happy New Year.--Maragm (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account[edit]

Hi Srnec! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Instrumentalism (disambiguation) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Instrumentalism (disambiguation) 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/Instrumentalism (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruption[edit]

Having a request close a way you don't want sucks. I understand, it's happened to me all the time. But the way to respond is not to be intentionally disruptive by pushing for a change that you know no one wants and isn't logical or removing examples of a term's use from a disambiguation page when there is proven and obvious use of the term and no POV issue. If you're just trying to make a mess because things didn't go your way, please take a step back and think about it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You have one single edit since November of last year that is not related to poll tax (or to reverting me on another article). Who's disruptive here? Srnec (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alan of Farfa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casalis (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) 09:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Woodstock[edit]

Since you participated in a similar discussion that recently closed, I thought you should be made aware that a similar move proposal is occurring at Talk:Woodstock#Requested_move_28_December_2014, in case you want to weigh in.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

New map for the Italian invasion of France article[edit]

Hi, our friend Goran is working on a new map for the article. This one gives the big picture, to complement the others that give a zoomed in view of the various areas. It includes the Alpine Line locations, key locations, and the general location of the French and Italian divisions. A second opinion on his first draft, and other comments, is much appreciated: [3]EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015[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, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean de Werchin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest (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) 09:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7[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.

Baba Dioum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Nancy
Stamenti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bonifacio

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Hello Srnec. The complaint has been closed with warnings to both parties against any edits at Poll tax that lack prior talk page consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015[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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Treaty of Paris (1812), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neuenburg (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) 08:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Kingdom of Italy (476–493)[edit]

Would you care to explain this edit of yours? The phenomenon is real, other wikis have articles on it, it's a perfectly legitimate stub. Yet you unilaterally redirected the article elsewhere back in 2011 and now seem to defend your choice - yet there's no sign of any discussion at the talk page. Am I missing something? //Halibutt 23:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Odoacer was rex in Italia, sure, but he was not rex Italiae (king of Italy) in his lifetime—that description is a posthumous one. Scholars debate whether he was king of his Germanic followers (the old consensus) or of everybody within his kingdom (the new consensus, I believe). Odoacer was a Roman official (patricius) of a new and elevated grade (rex). In short, there was no distinct "kingdom of Italy" created in 476, and the state that Odoacer ruled was the same one Theoderic ruled after 493.
The other Wikipedias (not the Italian one!) have articles as stubby and ill-referenced as our own. There is too flimsy a basis for a "former country" type article on a Kingdom of Italy between 476 and 493. Srnec (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
And all of this are perfectly legitimate concerns to be raised at the talk page of the relevant article - *before* you redirect the article once again. Be sure to {{ping}} me if you do (also, ping me the next time you decide to answer anywhere outside of my talk page - you know, that notification bar is there for a reason :) ). As to the title - I'm not happy with it either, but I guess it's a matter of preference. Anyway, there definitely *was* a state in Italy at that time and it definitely deserves an article. Sure, we can argue about the name (I'm all for it!), about whether Theoderic's and Odoaker's domains were the same state or two different states, but the state existed, it was not a power vacuum. Polish Wikipedia (and Polish historiography) usually refer to the states as "Odoacer's Kingdom" and "Theoderic's Kingdom" which seem a tad better to me as they underline the fact that the names are not contemporary or "official", but we'd have to check what's the most-used term in English (WP:UE). //Halibutt 00:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
How does redirecting this title imply anything about a power vacuum? The problem is separating out Odoacer's kingdom from (i) Odoacer himself, (ii) the Roman Empire of which it was a part, and (iii) the "Ostrogothic" kingdom that supplanted it. Since we have articles on these three things, there is no value in a stub with a "former country" infobox and bad title. What is this accomplishing? Srnec (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar article merge[edit]

Can you change the merge templates you added to specify the thread where the change would be discussed, and outline your reasons for wanting the merge? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Treaty of Leoben, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montebello (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) 08:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Afterlehen[edit]

Hi Srnec, thanks for the clarification of your change at the above article. "Absurd" was a little harsh. I translated the article from German Wikipedia and simply brought the references across. I had never heard of Ganshof, still less that he had written in English as well as German - quite clever as he was a Belgian! However, the problem is that the book you have cited doesn't mention the word Afterlehen, so is no help to readers of the article. So I'm afraid I've had to replace the German source which does. If you're not happy with that, please discuss it at the talk page. Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Rif War[edit]

Hi,

I reverted you on Rif War, since you made an edit that deleted a fact but still was marked as "minor". Please feel free to reapply if this wasn't a mistake. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Cuba (WWII Allies)[edit]

Fair enough, regarding Cuba... but perhaps there should be a small subsection about the Cuban contributions against German U-boats. The topic looks unfinished when we have a flag icon, but no text to back it up. If you have a bit of data on this subject please throw in a small statement. --E-960 (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere client states[edit]

Hello snerc, I would like to clarify your back edits of Japanese client states in the Axis powers page. The scope of the page is for 'countries' including puppet/client states that declared war on the United States and the Allies during World War II. In the waning days of the Second World War Japan created several states from European colonial possessions such as the State of Burma from British India and the Kingdom of Laos, the Kingdom of Kampuchea (Cambodia) and the Vietnamese Empire from French Indochina in order to gain popular local support against the fears of re-colonization. All of these puppet states declared war on the United States although with very limited international recognition of their supposed sovereignty. The description of their involvement and history are listed on the very page you purport to believe they do not belong on under Japanese client states detailing their involvement with Japan politically. Many of these states collaborated with Japanese forces and were active in detaining and imprisoning Allied Colonial officials. Given this, I do not think your argument that "(Kampuchea, Laos and Vietnam did not take part in the war whatever they were)" holds water while leaving other such minor client states such as the State of Burma when the very page you argue they are not part of, are listed in detail further down the very same page. Semi-Lobster (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

No, they did not declare war on the United States. Do you have a source for that claim? Srnec (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
You are correct that war was not directly declared on the United States by Japan's puppet states in South East Asia, although membership in Japan's Co-prosperity Field was a form of alliance with Japan politically and local Japanese-trained militia were raised by puppet states to defend against invasion. In several specific instances Empire of Vietnam was under constant hostility with the US supported Việt Minh which certainly signifies a level of warfare ranging from disobedience to widespread civil hysteria such as the killing of French nationals in 1945. The case in Cambodia is best explained in the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies Vol. 17, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 80-93, where, while not in direct conflict with the Western Allies, viewed their relationship with Japan as an 'alliance' and the formation of militia called 'green shirts' trained by the Japanese to fight on their behalf. The period in the last months of World War II were very fluid, and while attempts to appear as full fledged nations, the period generally lacks an essential 'formality' compared to contemporary Western history that allows specific dates and government policy to be written 'on the dot' as it were. In hindsight my assertion that Japan's South East Asian puppets as complete belligerents may have seemed 'bombastic' but my inclusion of these states I think is comparable to the Hellenic State or Second Philippine Republic, where conflict was generally internally directed at Allied countries rather than something more overt such as Axis minor participation on the Eastern Front or the Thai Invasion of the Burmese Shan States. Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The Indochinese puppet states were created in March 1945. The Manchurian, Mongolian, Philippine and Burmese puppet states were created no later than 1942. What's more, the Burmese state changed sides and fought against the Japanese. It could with as much justification be listed as an Allied affiliate. The placing of puppet states in the infobox is misleading in most cases and I'd happily removed all of them. Croatia, Slovakia and Manchukuo have the strongest claims to be included. Srnec (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello snerc, sorry about the delay in response. You are quite right, although direct material and logistical support is incredibly important, and these Japanese puppet states offered those, it is still not the same as a direct, exterior use of military force, compared to say, the German puppet of Slovakia or Croatia. Perhaps, a second list within the article, outside the info-box would be a better place for a complete list of Axis affiliates and leave the main article for actual members of the Axis, which leaves out all puppets? Or something similar? Semi-Lobster (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015[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) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Mandrake move[edit]

You recently participated in a move request discussion at Talk:Mandrake (plant). I have posted a follow-up request at Talk:Mandragora officinarum if you are interested in participating. —  AjaxSmack  00:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

War again[edit]

Hello Srnec, We have the user PedroPVZ moving articles again without trying to reach a consensus. I already asked Bgwhite to move Hermenegildo back to the original name (I tried, but made a mistake and can't rename him). Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you also fix (I saw you fixed Menendo) Hermenegildo Gutiérres? He moved Hermenegildo Gutiérrez to Hermenegildo Guterres and I tried to fix it but mispelled Gutiérrez (s at the end instead of z). If not, I'll wait for Bgwhite --Maragm (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I think we need an admin for that. You could put it up as uncontroversial at WP:RM and take the message off Bgwhite's talk page if you want. I don't know what would be quicker. Srnec (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll wait for Bgwhite. Just wish Pedro would spend more time referencing articles than making these moves. --Maragm (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I reported PedroPVZ's behavior and editing after wasting a lot of time yesterday on these reverts and moves, and after his editing in Ordoño II of León. Had he created the articles on Hermenegildo Gutiérrez or Menendo González with the "Portuguese" names, I would not have complained as long as he had inserted the Spanish spelling in the lede, but in these two cases in particular, those moves were his only contributions to those articles while he does not bother to add refeferences to the hundreds of articles on Portuguese nobles or royalty lacking any sources or refs. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix on Mendo. Going over Sánchez Candeira's work I remembered that I wanted to propose something. Both this author and Gonzalo Mtz Díez, are of the opinion that Fernando was not king of Castile. You can see what Mtz Díez says in Fernando's article in es.wiki where I added a direct quote, and I could furnish another quote from S. Candeira. I see that this was discussed already and I really believe that the article should be moved and exclude Castile from his title. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Castile did not emerge as a distinct kingdom until Ferdinand's division of the realm in 1065. (In fact, I see that I made this point in an edit summary of 16 April 2011‎.) In fact, I was just thinking the other day that we ought to reverse the order of León and Castile in the title of Sancho II of León and Castile. So perhaps we should move both articles. Srnec (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree that Castile should precede León in Sancho II. Re Ferdinand, I would omit Castile and just mention León.--Maragm (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting. Not surprising from somebody capable of writing this gobbledygook including Don Vela de Aragón, long exiled from any serious work by reputable historians together with “Lope López de Aualos señor de Vizcaya (???), Conde de Alaba, señor del lugar de Aualos, hijo del Infante don Lope Vela, y de la Condessa doña Juliana de Aualos, fundadores de la casa de Ayala” and other similar absurdities. If he is so intent on including the Visigothic origin, pehaps he can be persuaded to translate into english his article on the Vela family where even those with Vela as a first name or patronymic are all lumped together as if they were members of the same family.--Maragm (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guyenne, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charles VII and Homage (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) 09:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Obolus of Bernard William.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Obolus of Bernard William.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Sicily under Savoy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maltese falcon (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) 09:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WMD[edit]

Hello, further to your edit at the article World War I, please discuss the WMD issue on the talk page, so we can build a consensus and improve the article. Thank you IQ125 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015[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) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alfonso of Capua, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sora and Arce (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) 09:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Salve, amice[edit]

I see you're a fellow medievalist. Do you know where I can read translated English copies and screenshots of medieval manuscripts for free? I already am reading the Nuremberg Chronicle but Early Middle Ages from the 400s to 900s AD interests me the most.--Sigehelmus (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of one, no. There are English translations for many texts scattered all over the web, and a lot of Latin texts, for that time period. But I am not aware of any website that combines English translations with scans of manuscripts. For a start, on a later period, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Crusades_task_force#Resources. —Srnec (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you; if I find any links like I'm looking for would you be interested?--Sigehelmus (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox for Habsburg Netherlands[edit]

I saw you removed a "misleading" infobox for the article Habsburg Netherlands, but the infobox is a very helpful tool when browsing through various historical countries. I would request you create a new infobox that removes the misleading information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.96.140 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015[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) 23:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

AfD: Pantacles of Athens has closed[edit]

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantacles of Athens discussion has closed as a consensus "merge." The closing admin, SamWalton, identified four of the 40 articles for further talk page discussion whether they should be merged to the list or maintained as stand-alone articles: Talk:Dandes of Argos, Talk:Philinus of Cos (athlete), Talk:Oebotas of Dyme and Talk:Eurybus of Athens. Your input is requested on those article talk pages. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Elviras[edit]

Hello Srnec, thanks for the fix on the disambiguation page on Elvira Menéndez. I only decided to fix the article on the Elvira who died in 1022 after a user changed her year of death, confusing her with the previous Elvira and then decided to create the short article on the latter one, who died in 921. I'm about to tackle Elvira of Castile, Queen of León. I'm trying to find a source that said that she retired and became a nun since this is mentioned in the article, without any reference, and does not seem logical since it says that she shared the regency with count Menendo González until 1007 who died in 1008. In the article on Menendo, it says that Menendo was succeeded as regent by Elvira, with a reference by Martínez Díez (2007). I'm not sure, and am looking into it, if both shared the regency and then she was regent alone after Menendo's death, although one of the sources I'm checking, Fernández del Pozo, says that after Menendo's death, Alfonso, who would have been about 14 years old, reigned on his own. References 23 and 24 in the article on Menendo is Martínez Díez (2007), but that work is not mentioned previously in the notes (although you have his work on Condado de Castilla (2005). Can you tell me the title of that work? Also, would you mind if later, I separate the notes in the article into notes, references and bibliography? Regards, --Maragm (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The uncited book is Sancho III el Mayor. I've corrected the footnotes. I don't mind if you want to divide the notes into different sections. I also corrected the fact, since Martínez Díez does not say what I cited him as saying. He says explicitly that [a] la muerte ... del conde gallego ... se había iniciado, a los catorce años, la mayoría de edad del joven rey leonés in 1008. He cites a document from 1012 in which Alfonso calls the count of Castile his adiutor, but nothing about Elvira being regent. (I think I jumped to a conclusion about the significance of adiutor and its connexion to Elvira, who was still at court.) I checked the other citation to Martínez Díez (2007) and it is correct. He says, about Elvira, that she retired to Oviedo and died in 1017, and that Alfonso's rupture with Sancho of Castile circa 1014 was connected with (coincidió o más bien dio lugar a) her retirement. Roger Collins, Caliphs and Kings: Spain, 796–1031 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2014), p. 195, says that Elvira was regent in 1003 and sent troops to help the Umayyads defeat the Catalans at the battle of Albesa. According to pp. 161–2, shortly after this she ceases to appear at court, her position having been usurped by Alfonso's military tutor, Menendo. He goes on to note that a compromise was reached in 1007 and that Elvira appeared at court thereafter until her death. So Collins says by implication what Martínez Díez does not. Srnec (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I would move the page Elvira of Castile, Queen of León to a simpler title—Elvira García or Elvira Garcés, perhaps. I like disambiguating with dates, as you did with the other Elviras. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I've got Mtz Díez's work on Sancho el Mayor and will use it in Elvira. I also thought about moving her to Elvira García (García for Castilians, Garcés mostly for the Navarrese), but saw that Agricolae had moved it in March 2008 to Elvira García of Castile and then in Oct 2009 she was moved to her present name. I also prefer using Garcia since this is how most scholars mention her. So it would either be, Elvira García, Queen of León, or Elvira García (died 1017)...or the name Agricolae had given her, but then I think I have to ask an admin to move it since the name was already used. Or are you able to do it? BTW, I have a recent work by Salazar y Acha which I can scan and forward on several "misteries" regarding the Astur-Leonese, that gives some pretty convincing arguments on Vermudo's II illegitimacy and his possible Galician maternal line.Regards, --Maragm (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC) pd..I'll divide the refs, notes, and refs in Gonzalo when I finish with Elvira.

Ingelheim am Rhein[edit]

Hello Srnec, I corrected in above the dates of population. What did I wrong because that's not seeing? Regards -- Sweepy (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. I reverted one of your edits to Ingelger because we don't usually link dates here. Srnec (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I mean my latest revisions at the population 24.283 (31. Dez. 2013). This is not shown in the info-box. Regards -- Sweepy (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015[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, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you have against ancestry charts[edit]

Genuinely curious. I think they're interesting in illuminating family relationships among rulers. They don't as I can tell detract from the article in anyway, especially considering they're collapsed by default. Deleting them serves no purpose. --Jfruh (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I have nothing at all against family trees, which is basically what an ancestry chart is. But a family tree corresponds to a family. Why multiply what is basically the same chart over many pages? A wikilink to a page on the family, with a tree at that page, is the way to go. Charles the Fat and Carloman of Bavaria have the exact same chart. Does it need to be in both articles? Especially since it is almost the same as those for Louis the German and Arnulf of Carinthia, etc.
  • I don't think they illuminate family relationships, since their cutoff points are arbitrary. The text of the article should highlight the relationships that are relevant. Mom's dad's mom is not always relevant, or its relevance is rarely apparent. The text can explain when/if it's relevant. Srnec (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hejaz and Sultanate of Nejd[edit]

Hello! I noticed you got rid of the article for Kingdom of Hejaz and Sultanate of Nejd, with the reasoning that it was only a union of two countries. Actually the relationship between the Hejaz and Nejd was no different after 1927 (when it became the Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd) than it was before, except that Nejd was upgraded from a sultanate to a kingdom. The two states did not share a single constitution and administration from 1926 (the Saudi conquest of the Kingdom of Hejaz) until their formal unification into Saudi Arabia in 1932. But their separateness was complicated by the fact that they shared coinage, post, and, most importantly, a single Foreign Office. The British Government actually considered Hejaz-Nejd as two separate states, part of a personal union, from 1926 all the way until 1930, when they changed their stance and decided that the international position of the two states was more like a "real union" ([4]). Regardless of whether we consider Hejaz and Nejd as a personal union or "real union" - if Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd gets its own article, so should Kingdom of Hejaz and Sultanate of Nejd. Otherwise the period of 1926-1927 is ignored. --Axiom292 (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)