User talk:93.108.241.222

July 2018
Hello, I'm Mosstacker. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Avalon, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mosstacker (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2018
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for block evasion. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Yunshui 雲 水 08:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.



This looks to me like another sockpuppet of the banned user:G.-M. Cupertino see Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino -- PBS (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Hello, I'm AntiCedros. I noticed that you recently removed content from Galveias Palace without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. AntiCedros (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Esquire
At the time of Thomas Cotton, the term Esquire was a representation of someone being a gentleman without higher distinction, so not all members of the landholding classes were esquires, those who weren't knights, lords, earls or something else were. It was used as if it was a title of distinction by 18th and 19th century historians, but this was an anachronistic usage. Agricolae (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean, they were all Esquires, except the Knights, Lords, Feudal Lords? I didn't know it was anachronic. Thank you. 93.108.241.222 (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'esquire' was the description given in contemporary documents to reinforce that those who had no title or honour of distinction still belonged to the landholding class. It basically meant 'gentleman'.  So-called 'feudal lords' is a bit different, being a description of those men who held (usually substantial) land, and so an esquire could also be a 'feudal lord'.  Usually if they held enough land to be considered a 'feudal lord', they would in the course of time be knighted (or after the foundation of Parliament, summoned as a Lord) on that basis, but some paid the king not to make them a knight because they didn't want the responsibilities that came with it, so those would remain esquires. Agricolae (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By default, then. But not anachronically per se. 93.108.241.222 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Anachronistic in the sense that the 18th and 19th century historians treated the simple description that one was of the gentry class found in pre-16th century documents, 'esquire', as if it meant the same thing as the formalized term of distinction of their own time, Esquire, that beginning in the late 16th century had acquired a much more specific meaning than it carried at the earlier time. Agricolae (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Then only but still some before the 16th century were Esquires stricto sensu. 93.108.241.222 (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. While it would be legitimate to say that a 14th century younger grandson of an earl 'would be called Esquire by later usage', it is not good practice to extrapolate back stricto sensu usages to a time that stricto sensu usage had yet to be coined.  To a certain extent, usage defines culture and vice versa. In using the term you are applying to that person a cultural conceptualization that didn't exist in their time.  In plainer terms, the reason the term Esquire came to be used for the senior male lineage of knights is that the culture came to place a special significance on being such a person that earlier generations did not apply to them.  While an earlier person might fulfill a criterion that underlies the later usage of Esquire stricto sensu, applying the usage to them gives the false impression that their own culture viewed such a person as being in some manner distinct from the rest of the gentry, a cultural concept that only arose later. Agricolae (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In short, they were Esquires lato sensu, but not as a title per se as it is today. 93.108.241.222 (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

June 2022
Hello, I'm Hey man im josh. I noticed that you recently removed content from Husaynzada without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)