User talk:Adam Bishop/archive6


 * Archive: June 10-December 30, 2003
 * Archive 2: December 30, 2003-July 15, 2004
 * Archive 3: July 17-December 30, 2004
 * Archive 4: January 1-July 13, 2005
 * Archive 5: July 17-December 31, 2005
 * Archive 6: January 3-July 19, 2006
 * Archive 7: July 21, 2006-July 12, 2007
 * Archive 8: July 17, 2007-July 2, 2008
 * Archive 9: July 5, 2008-July 12, 2009
 * Archive 10: July 17, 2009-June 30, 2011

Unreasonable Deletion
Hey, you recently deleted the Page J-town Tribe. You did not give a reason for this deletion and it sort of makes me angry. No information on the page violated copyright and it was all verifyiable. if you lived in Janesville you would know the importance of the J-town Tribe and I would appreciate it if you discuss your reasons with me before you delete my page. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Trigger Happy
Dear Administrator: I, like you, am an editor; I create articles and make edits. But, many, I am sure many other people out there, are tired, frustrated and angry with the behavior of many Administrators. I am certain that it is appallingly easy to revert and article, that someone has undoubtedly spent allot of time and effort writing. I have, in the past spent hours, researching, planning, writing, checking and revising an addition to an article only to have the whole lot deleted forever three minutes afterwards.

I know that deletion of material is essential in a free-to-edit encyclopedia, but if you see an article that someone has anonymously devoted their time to writing, why could you not revise it, change it or give a reason for you action? They deserve one.

I know all Administrators are not all Drunk-With- Power-Trigger-Happy-Nazis, many of you do an excellent job and you know who you are. The world owes you. I owe You.

In closing: Create, don’t Destroy. Make a distinction between “what is right, and what is easy”. Be enriched and enrich others with the knowledge of other people.

And keep that finger off the trigger.

Dfrg.msc 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Steven McKinnan "nonsense" Controversy
Listen Bishop, I don't know what your fucking game is, but you deleted Stevie McKinnan's article because it was "nonsense". What the fuck is up your ass?

McKinnan fought in the Extrasolar Wars. Where were you during the Wars? Snug in your little house I bet, while men like McKinnan fought for your intergalactic freedom. Prick.

Can you actually disprove anything that was on the page? No, I didn't think so. Stevie did all of these things and is a Scottish legend. He even had his own wikipedia article.

- HNC Professional Writing

Rumours about sexuality
We've all seen the page Adam, what gives?

I heard that Bishop almost sparked an international incident by not catering to the demands of Scottish natives. - Mick

Catalan Company
Little help? I'm defending them on the Talk page against charges of being a figment of someone's imagination. Choess 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Minim" (palaeography)
Hi, as a contributor to some of the paleography-related articles, could you perhaps come and have a look over at Minim (palaeography)? There's some material there I find highly dubious. (Just stumbled across it as I was dealing with "minims" in music the other day.) Lukas 11:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for correcting that article! Great job. Lukas 20:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Page help
I was wondering if you could put this page, List of Lexx episodes, to the Episode lists page. Thanks. --DivineShadow218 02:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Saugeen Stripper
Adam, what gives? Why did you unilaterally decide to delete the Saugeen Stripper article that we could not come to consensus on in discussion? What is going on? Tokyojoe2002 18:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Saugeen Stripper is now listed on Deletion review which is where it should have been taken if you felt that AfD had been clsoed improperly, IMO. I strongly urge you to reverse your own actions and unldelete this. DES (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Frown
Template:Frown has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates for deletion. Thank you.

IP Address Blocking
What's your issue?? When someone finds a copyright violaton you block them???

The violation is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

The trigger for the First Crusade was Emperor Alexius I’s

and

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/fh_aug_chapter21.html By Craig Winn http://www.YadaYahweh.com - All Rights Reserved - 2005

The trigger for the First Crusade was Emperor Alexius I’s

Some system. They steal content and when you push the issue they block your IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.138.1 (talk • contribs)


 * Gee, I notice the one of the copyright violatins is gone, but you continue to block IP address 24.147.103.146. It's time for you to unblock and admit you were wrong.

Crusade
Hi Adam,

I see that you deleted my contribution on the article crusade about the crusade against the Stedingers. I know it wasn't a large crusade, but the fact that it was against roman catholic people who were excommunicated for purely political reasons makes it worth mentioning in this article. I also see that there is no mentioning about the 'crusades' (not sanctioned by the pope) against the jews in the Rhineland. A section could deal about that as well. I agree with the deletion of the enormous texts who are already mentioned in other articles.--Daanschr 11:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Crusades against the jews have been mentioned. But i still think that the Stedingers should be mentioned as well, because they were unique.

I think it was unique (crusade against fellow roman-catholics), but i'm not sure.--Daanschr 19:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You are an abusive admin
Note this recent post on Wales talk page,
 * Add Adam Bishop to this list as an abusive admin. Adam blocked IP address 24.147.103.146  when 24.147.103.146 put up a copyright infringment notice on the crusades page.  The copyright violation which begins "The trigger for the First Crusade was Emperor Alexius I’s" has been removed.  No apology from Bishop and the IP address remains blocked.  I suggest this admin is removed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.138.1 (talk • contribs)

Regarding 24.147.103.146
Hey Adam, im writing regarding your block of 24.147.103.146 in response to his edits to Crusade. I've been watching and dealing with this user for a while (heck, ive gotten him blocked myself), and although he is a bit out of line at times in the way he approaches copyright violations, I dont think what he was doing qualifies as vandalism. All of his edits to the crusade were to add a tag, and although the violation turned out to be only two sentences, it still correct. So while ill be the first to agree that his actions were a bit over the top, I think that a one week block for vandalism (with no warnings or notices or discussion on his talk page first) is a bit out of line as well. Thanks for considering. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 19:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I agree with you that his approaches are totally out of line. He knows enough about wikipedia to use the copyvio tag because several of us have been following his edits since about the begining of december (when he first appeared). Originally he did not use the tag, but was told in no uncertain terms that if he did not follow procedure in the future he would be blocked, and we told him how to use it. If you read his talk page youll see a long history of this. Basically, my point is that i agree that he was way over the top here, but I hardly think a weeks blocking is in order, especially with no communication or warning. After all, it wasnt really vandalism, it was just hyper-psychotic copyvio policing. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 21:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your unblocking this user. I think its the right thing, even if he can be a bit of a pain in his approaches :) Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Saugeen Shenanigans
Adam, I've just come across Playboy's (at www.usedmagazines.com) "Back to Campus issue" of October, 1987 wherein it featured the "Women of Top 10 Party Colleges." My guess is that here is where Saugeen was mentioned/ featured -- a Playboy Top 10, not a Letterman Top 10. City Lights Bookstore in downtown London might have a copy of it or a buddy of mine might. Regarding the goat story, I haven't heard that one, but if you Google "Saugeen-Maitland Hall," you'll find 12 or so pages of stuff about the residence and the recurring theme is that's it been a wild place for years. Barry Wells 22:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Adam!
! Long time! Listen, how would I find out how to translate a name into Latin? Is there a source for that? For instance, Melisende was translated to Melisendum in the text. I was wondering how to do the same for other names. Thanx!Drachenfyre 16:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

William of Tyre wrote "reseditque reginam regni potestas penes dominam Melisendem, Deo amabilem reginam, cui jure hereditario competebat ("the rule of the kingdom remained in the power of the lady queen Melisende, a queen beloved by God, to whom it passed by hereditary right"). This was from Benard Hamilton's artical. Could the -um be because the kingship authority William was writting about is considered a masculin concept?Drachenfyre 18:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Crusade move
Sorry about it. I would like to know what I did inappropriately to help me in the future (I tend to be an agressive editor). --hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ref. Thanks! --hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  02:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Frown
Lifted your (userfied) code for Template:Frown for my userpage. If you have any problem with this, let me know. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Monster Contributor
Adam, I've just been looking at your list of contributions on WP. All I can say is you're one heck of contributor on a wide variety of topics, including Canadiana. Kinda makes me feel like a pipsqueak or a little grass snake! All the best Big Kahuna! Barry Wells 01:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam, I beefed up the Saugeen-Maitland Hall page (my mom worked there for 22 years as "secretary to the Proctor") and agree that the Saugeen Stripper page should be deleted, but remain partial (fond) to the nurse pic. Almost makes me want to get sick for a few days. Barry Wells 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar!!!
I saw the comment "Monster Contributor" and took a look at your history contributions (I've seen your entries pop up an awful lot in Crusades-related articles as I've been perusing/studying/editing on that topic lately) - kudos! You also quickly caught a few errors on William of Tyre on my part, and demonstrated a great deal of knowledge and tact - which saved me a great deal embarassment! DonaNobisPacem 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconded! Barry Wells 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Could not agree more. Now, I wonder if this is the same A.B. who is currently a student at King's University College?


 * No, but I probably went to high school with that guy. Adam Bishop 16:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Monterey Pop
Hi Adam -- yes I wrote the Monterey stuff on Milesago (it's my site, BTW) and the sources are cited there, although unfortunately the main article I drew on is no longer on the web.

Is it possible to restore the stuff I added please? Anything I take from Milesago for Wikipedia is my own writing/research and therefore my copyright (yes? no?), so I can't see what the problem is? I've had the same hassle with the article about Stewie Speer even though it's all my article from my site. *sigh*. Is this going to happen all the time? How do I avoid this? Cheers, Dunks

Thanks
Hi Adam -- staggeringly prompt response, mate! Now I grok the question -- sorry but it's 3.45 am over here so I'm a bit slow on the uptake. I have NO problems with my Milesago stuff being used on Wiki and/or getting copied elsewhere, or I wouldn't put it there. The main reasons I started adding copyright notices on Milesago were (A) not all of the stuff there is my work and I want to protect the people who contribute (although I only ever put MY articles on Wiki) and (B) because some clown of a music teacher in northern NSW copied a whole bunch of stuff off Milesago onto his own website and used it as a teaching resource without asking.

But basically I don't care what happens to my work on Milesago as long as it's acknowledged when used by others. However I'm not familiar enough with international copyright to have thought through the implications concerning copying my articles to Wikipedia. Call me lazy, but I have a house to finish renovating (singlehanded) so copyright law is WAAAY down the "to do" list, haha. Anyway, all the best and thanks for your assistance and advice :) Dunks

Are you really gone?
Are you really gone? I've observed you in my short time as a wikipedian (since November 13) and would be quite surprised if someone of your talent, skill, time here were to leave. Just oh so curious-- M  W  Johnson  06:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for pointing out the Aegospotamai/Aegospotami thing. I have absolutely no idea how I got it in my head that it was spelled -ai. --RobthTalk 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Non illegitimi carborundum
That is all. Best. Choess 18:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Non Nobis Domine Non Nobis Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam


CristianChirita

What happened to your User Page, Adam?
Don't tell me that Saugeen Stripper/ Saugeen-Maitland Hall nonsense got the better of you? If that wasn't it, what was it? The January blahs? Barry Wells 00:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * January blahs aside, don't let a difference in opinion stand in your way. You have been and remain an exceptional contributor to WP both in content and concience. So cheer up, after you could be me. Nobody needs another one of those around. And, spring is, after all, just around the corner. Hamster Sandwich 12:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a nice barnstar? Ok, here you go: "Wikipedia is not a student newspaper."

More Olde Frenche
I read you. Yes, obvious might have been an option, though one I did not think of. But remember that Maria Comnena and her daughter Isabella were at least as obvious, which is why Sibylla had to shore up her position, and proper looking struck me as a good rendering... aparoistre meant to become/be visible, or to seem, but had connotations of looking good, unless qualified. There may very well be something to your idea about the term being linked to heir apparent, I could not tell. And I grant I'm NOT an expert in old French, the earliest I read with ease being Rabelais, I never could get proper education in the older dialects. I am relying on more general knowledge of French(my native tongue after all), Latin, linguistics and history. --Svartalf 17:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

All right. Will you edit it to the corrected version, or should I do my autocritic and do it myself? I still think that my version fits well, but yours fits as well, so either will do. --Svartalf 17:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Price check, Aisle 3
You probably have better sources on the Byzantines to hand than I do: could you examine the first section of Manuel I Comnenus, on his attack on Raymond of Antioch? The writer seems to have garbled two historical episodes: Manuel's response to Raymond's demand for the cession of part of Cilicia (at the beginning of his reign, 1144), and the response to the raid by Raynald of Chatillon on Cyprus in 1156. The close escape of "Thoros of Cilicia" (Thoros II) seems to have been a result of the later expedition (1159); I'm presently working on his article and noticed this. Choess 18:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Montferrat
I've done the Marquess of Montferrat page and sorted the links! Silverwhistle 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Great Quote
Adam, I love the quote on your user page (particularly the bit about the horse's diaper): ""Everywhere I look, someone is breaking the law. Dog, no leash. Man littering. Horse not wearing diaper. Car parked across three handicap spaces." Who wrote it?

You're one of the all-time great contributors to WP. A Wayne Gretzky, a Gordie Howe, a Marcel Dionne, a Mark Messier, a Bobby Orr, a Jean Beliveau, a Maurice Richard, a Terry Sawchuk, a Johnny Bower, a Tim Horton, a Frank Mahovlich .... Barry Wells 00:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Melisende Images
Adam! I found an image of Melisende's marrage to Fulk in 1130! It is from the 'Histoire de la conquete de Jerusalem' by William of Tyre, an exerpt appearing in "The Crusades; An Illistrated History" (found at Barnes and Noble!). It is amazing! It protrays a crownd Melisende and an un-crowned Fulk, the right hand of each is held by the Latin Patriarch. Melisende has golden-yellow hair and appears demure. A crowed and bearded Baldwin II appears behind Fulk, with his right hand facing the back of Fulk's head. What is telling is that Melisende is crowned and Fulk is not.

There are other church officials in the back ground, but I do not know whom they may be. There are richly clothed lords to the left of the picture, and bejeweled ladies on the right behind Melisende.

The illistration appeares exactly in the style of the one on the book-cover of "Queen of Swords", which appears to protray Melisende and party in Acre watching Fulk's ships come to dock. Additionally it seems very close to the image we removed of "a queen accepting fealty from a vassel". Weather or no they are in fact Melisende images I do not yet know. I wish to scane the image of the wedding, and once I get more images directly from the 'Histoire' will wish to publish them here too, mayhap with your assistance and prior viewing. What is the policy of an image from a book but of a clearly older source?Drachenfyre 02:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections
--Loopy e 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan
Greetings! As you may have noticed, I've done significant work on this article with the aim of bringing it to FA quality. Please add your comments here! :) Radio  Kirk   talk to me  21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Adam! Just saw you in other user's page. Nice to know your're still around! :) Cheers, muriel@pt 13:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ease of citing
Thanks for your comments on IRC - it's good to be able to get an independent viewpoint on this sort of thing. You're very welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. -- ChrisO 22:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:GreekChariotBig.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:GreekChariotBig.JPG. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, contact Carnildo.

Require your expert opinion
Hi Adam; you were very helpful to me some time back, and if I could be so bold as to ask for your assistance again it would be much appreciated.

I like to stay abreast with articles of interest and prime to that is to see the latest articles that become linked to it. The default for the What links here is to display the earliest written article to the last written article that is linked to it.

I was wondering if that can be manipulated so as to display the latest article first? It certainly would save a lot of time when paging down through reams of links, sometimes in the thousands to get to the latest.

The ability to do this is an option when viewing the User contributions page when you can choose the option of latest or earliest. You may not be able to answer this question or suggestion, but I believe that it would be a worthwhile option for many users that uses What links here similar to how I use it. HJKeats 13:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was hoping I wouldn't get that answer but I kind of suspected it. Do you believe that it is something that could be requested be changed? I'm sure if you took a survey of the active wikipedians they would all say that they use it this way and to get to the latest can be a pain. How do we go about to force change? HJKeats 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Isaac II
Hi Adam, I realize the Isaac II Angelus Britannica article at can't be viewed in its entirety without a subscription. But it was the reference for the date I added, and the beginning of the EB article (including the date) is publicly visible. I'm not going to put it back, but you might want to, since the date is unreferenced now. I guess I could cite the Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD, which I own, or the paper edition, which I don't own but presumably has the same information, but those are less accessible. Rbraunwa 15:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Artemisia I of Caria
Not so. In many sources she is referred to as Queen of Caria or of the Carians. Her tyrantship over the largely Greek populace of Halikarnassos was probably in addition to a queenship over the native Carians who inhabited the hill country. The fact that the later ARtemisia is referred to as "Artemisia II" clearly recognizes that she is of the same rough sequence as Artemisia I.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Crusader-States.jpeg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Crusader-States.jpeg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. - SCEhard T 03:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:PatroclusChariotBig.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PatroclusChariotBig.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 06:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My ban on #wikipedia
I'm not a pedophile. I did say I am an ephebophile, but then again, I am 14, so this is normal (though most adult males are ephebephiles, too). Please unblock me from #wikipedia. --Rory096 22:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still banned; the list did not reset. Rory 0 96 20:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are 14 and attracted to other 14yos you are not an ephebephile: you are a 14yo. You can't be an ephebephile until you are no longer an ephebe. Sorry. Adam 21:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Parthenon
Adam, I could use some here at Parthenon. Adam 21:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My ban on #Wikipedia
I don't miss it that much, but I do have issues with (uhhh...whats his name again? I have to look it up...) User:Jdforrester being the gatekeeper, so to speak. I had an issue with wikipedia process, specifically the appointment of the "Klerk Klub" and was summarily banned with the message "You picked the wrong guy to piss off." Clearly a conflict of interest and bad form on his part, but there is no way I would ask to be "allowed" to use that channel. I have been making some inquiries as to the method of having him removed from this operator position. It seems to me, that the Wikipedia Foundation solicits actual money from the public to keep this ship afloat. I have resolved to never give them a dime, until a more egalitarian approach to administrating it has been established. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 21:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Countship" (sic)
User:Fastifex is rapidly changing "county" to "countship", i.e. County of Foix, at every appearance. This strikes me as a particularly foolish Wikipedianism. What do you think? --Wetman 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
If you haven't already, look at some of the vandalism that has taken place on your talk page, here. BJAODN material, in my humble opinion. Ferrit fetish? Too funny, man. Now I'm going to warn the vandal, if no one else has. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 15:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes
Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Adam! - Crusade-y and Outremer topics
Just to let you know I've been tweaking a few articles; hope that's OK. I noted that a few articles still retain interpretations that are no longer sustained by contemporary academic historians. For example, Bernard Hamilton has, I think, effectively taken apart the definitions of 'court' vs 'noble' factions in Baldwin IV's reign - it's more about paternal vs maternal kin-groups. The traditional depiction of the king as his mother's puppet is not really sustainable these days. Also, as (it seems) the main (only?!) English-speaking Montferrat researcher, I've clarified a few references about the Williams, Conrad and Baldwin V. Silverwhistle 00:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes - when I was a student in the '80s, Runciman & c were still the historical orthodoxy. But over the past year or so I've been catching up on over 20 years' worth of new work. I've been reworking some of the articles as I've come across them, to acknowledge the differences. (Have done some tweaks on Balian of Ibelin). What's interesting is that so many of the earlier historians took on board the prejudices of some of the chroniclers without question - even when they were obvious political players like William of Tyre, with his sour grapes over not getting the Patriarch's job. (I'm reminded of Stubbs's 19C introductions and notes to things like the Itinerarium Peregrinorum and Roger of Howden - as vicious in the notes as in the text about Conrad!) I enjoyed Kedar's Outremer, the festschrift volume for Joshua Prawer - good pieces on Guy and Eraclius.

Silverwhistle 19:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for the heads-up - I've re-done Kingdom of Jerusalem, both on the factions, and in putting the Third Crusade material in an order that makes more chronological sense. Slowly inching my way through some of the others... (The Montferrat boys are my particular pets). Silverwhistle 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Crusader Image
It came from a tapestry. According to the tapestry store... This tapestry was inspired by a fresco depicting the events detailed above, and was painted in 1420 by an anonymous painter known only as the "Master of Manta". The original can still be seen today in Manta Castle in Northern Italy. This tapestry is lined and has a tunnel for ease of hanging.

- Wurkwurk

Not a notable South alumni?
Shurely shome mishtake! Barry Wells 23:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

JSYK
(JSYK = "Just So You Know") Adam, I and a "ZScout370" from the chatroom figured out what the "glitch" was. It was, to a certain degree. Curps blocked "Shultz_III" and you unblocked "Shultz III", without the underscore, so that explained how things appeared to be glitchy. He finally lifted the autoblock and the block for "Shultz III" so it's finally gone. I guess this quasi-redirect only works in one way. This was a valuable thing to learn, so I thought I'd share it with you. --Shultz III 03:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

South alumni
Ol' Billy-boy (Bill Brady) grew up and Windsor, Ontario and yes, I've gotten googley-eyed and been stripped at Saugeen-Maitland Hall! Barry Wells 00:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not notable, I don't know who the hell is! Barry Wells 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sibylla of Jerusalem vandelism
Hello Adam! There seems to be some vandelism on the Sibylla of Jerusalem page. I reread the page several times and can only see it as mis-information. The sources section was even removed. Could you revert it?

Also, I still havent gotten the Melisende's Wedding image up yet but I'm sure you will like it. hope thinsg are going well, Drachenfyre 01:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Agnes of Courtenay & Reginald of Sidon
I've updated these two. Am slowly working my way through the whole merry band... Silverwhistle 22:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sibylla and Guy
There wasn't, as far as I can see, an actual annullment-and-remarriage - she simply selected him at the coronation and crowned him, while he was still her husband. Given that there had been a precedent with her parents (Amalric getting throne and having to annul Agnes), it might have been hoped she'd co-operate. The same precedent would also have been in play re: Isabella and Humphrey.

Sibylla & Isabella
Have also done a bit more re: updating the 2 girls, and some linked pieces. That image that's up of Isabella is actually Sibylla, a detail of her marrying Guy. I have the whole picture (copyright-free) from Gallica. Silverwhistle 13:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Baldwin IV of Jerusalem
I'm steadily updating and expanding his article. More military and diplomatic info from Hamilton. Silverwhistle 21:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Siege of Jacob's Ford: August 24-29 1179. Jacob's Ford is a castle. Saladin laid siege, mined the walls, razed it and killed the defenders. Here's a link to a detailed piece on it: http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/barber1.htm Silverwhistle 08:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Baldwin of Ibelin
He was taken prisoner in the battle of Marj Uyun, along with the Templar Grand Master Odo de St Amand and Hugh of Tiberias. I've updated his page a bit. He has now received the, um, 'credit' (?!!) for introducing the Lusignans back in 1174...Silverwhistle 11:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

JillandJack
Adam, a couple of colleagues and I are running a bot-created list (courtesy of Freakofnurture) of images uploaded by blocked users. A good percentage of these images are by JillandJack, whom you identified as a sockpuppet of DW. What do you think we should be doing with these? A lot of them are improperly sourced or tagged and we're tagging them, and if they're orphans we're deleting them. Should we take more aggressive action than this? Thanks, Chick Bowen 17:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Manuel I Comnenus
I thought you may want to comment. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Tironian notes
Hi Adam,

I have seen that you did a partial revert on the "viz" article. You say the 7 with or without bar is an abbreviation for "et" implying, IIUC, that the final 'z' in "viz" has another origin. This would be confirmed by Tironian notes, which says (emphasys mine):


 * Two Tironian notes are still used today: the Tironian "et" in Ireland, and the "z"
 * of "viz" (short for videlicet), which denotes a Tironian symbol shaped somewhat like a "z".

Do you have any reference for this? It would also be nice to have an image of this second symbol, in order to compare it with the first one.

Thanks, --Gennaro Prota 11:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Self-improvement
Holi greetings from an Indian wikipedian. I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2006. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to kindly give here. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

New task force
Hi, User:Kirill Lokshin suggested you may be interested in the new WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force. I'd like to extend an invitation to join us. Regards, Durova 20:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate Logons
Hi Adam, I have accidentally set up 2 Logons (I use 2 different sites), & there has been work done using each. The 2 Logons are: Grahambould & GrahamBould  I think they have the same Password. I would like the work to be consolidated under one Logon (doesn't matter which one) & the other deleted. If you are not the right person to do this could you please redirect. Thanks. 194.63.116.72 09:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Aetate sua
Thanks; I really do command Latin, and am deeply obliged. Septentrionalis 16:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who continue to remove coments from their User Talk page
Adam, what should we do about users who constantly remove comments from their User Talk page? -- Andy Saunders 23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pourpre et blanc
Hi, Adam,

I found that Western  insists "white and purple" is correct because the heraldic description is "purpure and argent". So I went to revert and found that it had already been reverted. Seems a little obsessive-compulsive to me. Still don't see why they bother to teach logic, though. p v q = q v p is what I was taught in Philosophy 37 or whatever it was. I think it was, anyway; it's so long ago they could have changed the rules. Anyway, I added a note that this position is an opinion of the administration.

Don;t want to sound disparaging here, although I have (I got a cold). If there's a good reason I'm open to removing my note. John FitzGerald 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

DW sockpuppet
Adam, the possibility has been raised that Ted_Wilkes (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]) is a sockpuppet of User:DW. I find this plausible, and have (along with others) posted some evidence at AN/I. Given your long-term involvement with this case, you are invited to comment. (I've also posted this at Angela's talk page.) Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Arms of Ibelin
Adam, I would very much like to know how you created the Ibelin arms, as I would like to create the FitzMartin arms (argent, two bars gules), and others, in similar articles. Cheers. Fergananim 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Kievan Rus
A user named Ghirlandajo has edit recently the article claiming that Kieven Rus was the most advanced state in Europe. Seeing that you seem interested in history of that era could you look at it ? Here are the changes he made.  Unfortunetly discussion with him is impossible he just names people who oppose him "trolls". --Molobo 17:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Clavell
Why you have deleted part:"From 1726-1733 Arbanasi in Zadar are settled by catolic Albanian refugees." It is one of important parts in Zadar history.Look:http://www3.sympatico.ca/icurkovic/Arbanasi.html

I just changed previous sentence to: "From 1726-1733 one part of Zadar is settled by catolic Albanian refugees.That Albanian settlement is called Arbanasi." I hope now is more understandable.--Clavell 21:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell are you? Why should I care what you think?
A slight twist on the rude & arrogant words you uttered on my talk page. You've put yourself on the wrong foot already with me. To answer your rude questions, I am Spawn Man, just incase you didn't get it from my talk page. Why you should care what I think is because maybe if you listened to what I thought, you'd find out what someone other than your over inflated ego bulging inside that head of yours thinks. I'm simply placing a legitimit template on the movies I've reviewed. People are allowed to place templates for their collaborations which go nowhere, so why aren't I allowed to place a template for a couple of movies which I reviewed? I also encourage others to take part in the process, saying they should submit their reviews too. If they did in the first place, maybe I wouldn't have to "spam" (hardly...) the movie's talk pages. If you have a problem, please ask my opinion before deleting all my templates. I shouldn't get blocked for exploding up there, because quite frankly, you started it.... Spawn Man 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can take a joke, but yours wasn't very funny. In fact, it was quite.... not jokey. The templates do not detract from the encyclopedic value. I'm sure all encyclopedias have their own collaboration banners on their talk pages.... (not!). So I don't see how I'm disrupting the whole site with a couple of banners on a couple of little used talk pages to a page which might give someone an idea of the book or movie they might want to see soon. They can even contribute if they wish. I do not see the problem. The only problem is you probably being jealous that I have a review's page & well.... you don't. Thanks, Spawn Man 05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Pope's apology
I don't want to start an edit-war with this guy in Fourth Crusade, but he's refusing to accept sourced information. He obviously has some fetish reasons to deny Pope's apology, and persistence is his only weapon. I find this to be poor a editing behaviour, and I think you need to intervene in order to prevent an edit-war. Miskin 19:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Raymond III of Tripoli
I've updated and edited Raymond. Silverwhistle 19:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hema/Hermae
Hi, I notice you've redirected Hermae to Herma after I removed the merge tag. I'm not an expert on the subject, but it looked to me like the two had very different content and were about different things, Herma being about the god, and Hermae being about archetectural features originally taking their name from the god. There is certainly a lot of useful (in my opinion) information in the Hermae article that should, if it doesn't have its own page, be merged into Herma. Kcordina Talk 17:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * templates substituted by a bot as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 07:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fourth Crusade
Thank you, well said. --Stbalbach 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You ignorant English...
...no just kidding. Thought you might find this interesting to read. Cheers, —Ruud 01:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a hilarious article! DonaNobisPacem 06:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Beaver Hall
Just as a heads up, I misread your comment on the RfD page but I think my comment backs our case anyway. Congrats on having the kahones to step in on the Gdansk debate. TKE 05:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople
This is the first time we are editing a common artilce even though we talked on IRC from time to time. I jsut feel I am somewhat honored. :) -- Cool CatTalk 19:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Past Mortem
Is this someone putting your name in the article Past Mortem or is it legit? -- Thorpe | talk 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. -- llywrch 00:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I
delivered by Loopy e 04:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh
I am reverting Battle of Manzikert to last version by you, you are reverting it back to Miskin. Nice, not sure what that means though.--Kagan the Barbarian 07:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is actually a good idea. Just show me where to sign if it will ban Kurds and Armenians as well. I really want these articles to be neutral, Adam, don't get me wrong.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

See these
You might be willing to comment on this and that. N i k o S il v e r   (T) @ (C) 10:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Joscius
Yes, I've a fair bit of info on him, including material from a huge 2 vol book in French on the history of Tyre in the Crusades. Will see what I can do.Silverwhistle 11:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:House of Dunkeld
I'd like an outside opinion, from people who won't be afraid to speak their mind, on the discussion at Talk:House of Dunkeld. Oddly enough, you came to mind :-) Do you have any thoughts on the subject ? Thanks ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking for advice
Hello again Adam. Thanks for replying to my earlier question. "It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine," to quote an overrated English scribbler. With that in mind, would you mind having a look through the summaries on my edits, and the comments I've made on talk and user talk pages lately, and tell me how I'm doing on the WP:Civil side of things ? Somewhere along the way I appear to have upset someone, which surprises me, since I surely am a ray of sunshine, or so I think. So perhaps a second opinion wouldn't hurt. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking so quickly ! Much appreciated. I don't know who I upset. If it was do to with reporting open proxies being used for scripted edits/vandalism, then I'm happy I did upset someone. I just wanted to check I wan't being a complete dick. Usenet habits are very hard to break (assume what ?). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Principality of Zeta
I am glad to inform you that your proposition has been accepted. Regards! --HolyRomanEmperor 19:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia
Talk:Kosovo- The voice of Kosovar

Deletion of template:future tv show
Hi, Adam. I don't want to step on your toes, but I was wondering if you would mind it if I undeleted Template:future tvshow. If you look at the discussion at WP:AN, it seems that there isn't really a consensus for a speedy deletion. I think it would be better if it were put up at TfD and discussed — but I don't want to wheel war.

Best, Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, I don't care...I was asked to delete it because consensus had apparently been reached. Adam Bishop 15:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah... I think that apparent consensus was a bit premature. (The only discussion was one day on WP:AN — the first thing that many users knew about it was the template's deletion from various pages.)  Thanks for being understanding. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Future tvshow
I've just restored this per the request on WP:DRV. The speedy reason given is not part of the CSD (crystal-ballery) and, whilst a good reason to slowly delete an article, a template that actually contains no information of crystal-ball nature seems to lie far outside the speedy criteria. It was also a contested PROD that the PRODder essentially tried to force through by an inappropriate speedy. Just thought I'd let you know. -Splash talk 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

IP 65.165.173.1 and Vandalism
Hi Adam. Just noticed that you rightly reverted the vandalism of IP 65.165.173.1 on the London, Ontario page. I checked the contributions of IP 65.165.173.1 and it seems that IP's been vandalizing the site from its first "contribution." Some form of blocking may be in order. Barry Wells 20:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ringmail and vandalism
It seems some unbidentified vandals keep replacing the ringmail article with stuff about it being a historical mistake. After all the work I had to prove to myself it was a true form of armor, I am tired of having to revert the page on a regular basis. I suggest protecting it might be a good idea.

Yours truly --Svartalf 22:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous vandal has struck again, less than 24 hours after I set the matter right again. I think the "long period of time" you perceived stemmed only from my being slow in checking and correcting the article. I must insist that some form of protection is desirable --Svartalf 14:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is turning into an edit war, and something has to be done about it.

All because some know-it-alls from the briton world won't take continental Europe's historical data, both archeologic and linguistic into account, and insist into turning the article into a disclaimer about it being a legend born of the low standards of Victorian era historical analysis... I know from linguistic evidence and from reputable (and quoted) French sources, that this bit of ironmongery was no legend, and I'd bet the German world might give some confirmation, except I can't do that job myself. I can't negociate a note about the matter with some #@§% who operate only from an anonymous IP number and don't quote sources. "generally acknowledged today that virtually all the armour on the Bayeux Tapestry is standard chain mail " : by whom? Anyway, this method of wholly replacing a decent article with one that is laden with POV and unsourced, and without giving a proper signature constitutes vandalism if I ever saw it. As for the talk page, I've made my position and sources quite clear there, as you can check yourself, and the naysayers are wanting in their argumentation. Contamine's source catalog alone (just on medieval armour) takes several dozen pages. As for the "reputed armor expert Dan Howard", I've checked him out, and found he's interested in winning arguments, not in serious history, and resorts to dirty debate team tricks when he can't prove his point.

As far as I can tell, "ringmail" really was a historical type of armor, even if the term is of recent coinage, and I'm tired of correcting the rants of stupid dweebs who haven't had access to proper sources and try to pass it for a legend created by misinformed historians, and who pass their own misconceptions as "widely acknowledged truth". By letting them anonymously rewrite history, you're letting falsehood and POV into the wiki... which goes contrary to this work's objective. I guess it's to avoid that kind of thing that admins are given special powers. I'm an ordinary joe and can't do a thing about it. Now, if you want me to just wash my hands of the whole matter and let whole days of research go to naught as "difference of opinion", okay... but then, I wash my hands of the whole wiki, I don't want to work for nothing. I can understand people improving on my stuff, but not making my work a complete waste of time. --Svartalf 17:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop
Look, Adam, you know who I am, you know what you've been doing to me for four months. I'm asking you, as one human being to another, please stop. Whatever you want me to do, I'll do it, please just stop. This has gone on long enough, one man has already died and my children refuse to eat. So please, please, I beg of you, just stop this maddness.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Cruise

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Peloponnesian War
==Vandal tags==

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia! Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as,  ,  ,  ). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the  tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael I Cerularius
As per my comments on its talk page, I'm sorry you had to do all the revisions to the article yourself, but I still thank you for doing so nonetheless. hellenica 10:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II
The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lok s h in 18:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Salo in Space deletion?
I noticed you deleted the article for Salo in Space. Any particular reason why? –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Feedback
Hello,

I've been translating your contributions into Swedish for about two or three years now. I've been thinking of providing you with some good feedback for about the same time. So, this is my way of saying "great job, keep going"! I'm glad you are around, several of my translations are featured or "prominent" articles on the Swedish Wikipedia now. Your contributions are really part of the best side of Wikipedia!

Mats Halldin 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC) (Swedish talk page)

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII
Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 10:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Crusades
Hi Adam. I'm not sure who said it but I know for sure that it was in Phillips' book on the fourth crusade. That's what I like about Phillips, his rich citations of contemporary accounts. Give me a minute, I'll find the full citation and paste it here. Miskin 12:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I found it (ch. 9, The first siege of Constantinople), but I was wrong about the context. "Alexius III dispatched a Lombard, Nicolo Rosso, to hear at first hand why the crusaders had come to Byzantim and to ask them to justify their actions... Some feared the effect of this approach, and Hugh of Saint-Pol reflected the age-old suspicion of Greek duplicity: 'we did not want the Greeks to solicit or soften us with their gifts'."

The reference of this is "Hugh of Saint-Pol, Sources, 190". Miskin 13:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup advice
Thanks for your cleanup and advice on the articles I am working on Western Fair Museum and Archives. I really should write the articles before I put them on Wiki LOL. WayneRay 15:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Western Fair Museum and Archives
Adam and Wayne, the Western Fair Museum and Archives no longer exists and the building sits empty after the Western Fair Board decided to discontinue its operation approximately six months ago. Artifacts and archives have either been put into storage, returned to original owners who donated them or sent up to the University of Western Ontario. Inge Sanmiya now teaches a few courses at UWO. The Wikipedia story needs to be adjusted accordingly. P.S. My information comes from London photo-historian Stephen Harding who I spoke with last evening. Barry Wells 23:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

question
hi Adam, how are you? question, long time ago you translated the article Leopold V of Austria (Babenberg) from German into English, thank you for your work. I am trying to find a solution to the naming issue of the article, since according to Naming conventions (names and titles), article "Other royals" point 1 states "For royalty other than monarchs: 1. If they hold a princely substantive title, use "{first name}, {title}". Examples: Charles, Prince of Wales, Anne, Princess Royal, Felipe, Prince of Asturias." and point 2 "If they hold a substantive title that is not princely (a peerage, for instance), use "Prince/ss {first name}, {title}". Examples: Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex.". I guess if you don't want to count the non-ruling Habsburg's as royalty but as nobility, "Other non-royal names" point 1 "Members of the hereditary Peerage (people who inherit their title), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke, earl, etc., as with royals have two names....etc." (I won't post everything down, you can click here for the full text  gives a further guideline. Basically my question is, since you created the article, do you think moving it to another location such as "Leopold V, Duke of Austria" is ok with you, similar to the format Henry XIII, Duke of Bavaria? Only if he was a ruler of a place is the format "xxxx of xxxx" used for males (see Wikipedia convention on "Monarchical titles", point 1). Similarly, the current Leopold V of Austria (Habsburg) would be moved to "Archduke Leopold V of Austria". Do you see what I am trying to say? Following this pattern, the current non-ruling Habsburg articles would be moved in order to make a differentiation easier and have them comply with the current Wikipedia rules. Looking forward to your thoughts, thank you. Gryffindor 18:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nichola
Well I don't think anybody's particularly waiting to seize on personal details, if she has a brother who plays football in high school, that doesn't belong on Wikipedia or anywhere else. But how old she was, and where she was from, are topical information. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 03:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to include it; its unfortunate her gender will make her an asterisk in future history books, but surely her passing is as significant as the sacrifices of the other 16 Canadians, some who have been highlighted by articles already. One may want to revisit the decision if Canadian casualties become as numerous as US casualties in Iraq but I think Captain Goddard will always be of historical significance, as much as I disagree with the reasons why that may be so. Either way, no sense burying one's head in the sand. I think the article as it stands now is tasteful and encylopaedic.Michael Dorosh 02:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers
Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe you are interested in.--Panairjdde 17:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III
The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. &mdash;ERcheck @ 05:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Philip Sandifer
It's obviously not a speedy, if you want it deleted put it up for AfD. Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember to AGF
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Happy editing! --Rory096 22:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"I can only assume Brenneman and SlimVirgin created this specifically so it could be deleted and fought out on Deletion Review. It's ridiculous."
 * I'm struggling to find words to express my dismay. If you had looked at the article's history before you made this personal attack, you'd have seen me removing dubious sources, placing an appropiate template on the talk, talking to K about its speedy deletion candidacy, tagging it with prod, and OH YEAH me not being the person who made this article.  Have we had some conflict that I've forgotten about that would have predicated this thoughtless lick to the head?
 * brenneman color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 08:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That was meant to be "kick" but I like the performance-art mental image of "lick" better anyway. brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 09:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Middle Ages did not call younger members of royal families as princes and princesses
please check the ongoing discussion about "princess" title on Talk:Margaret of Connaught - it will have implications that many medieval women will soon get the courtesy prefix "princess" before their names in article names. ObRoy 21:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Crusade cycle
(copy--)

Hey Andrew, I saw that you were adding links to Crusade cycle - are you planning on writing that article? I am trying to write one at the moment, I just haven't finished yet, but I don't want to step on your toes! Adam Bishop 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam, I would have done a stub but not a full article. I shall be very happy for you to write it. It's all yours! Thanks for checking. Andrew Dalby 18:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers Follow Up
Greetings. As a recent contributor to the survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI, you may be interested in the following. A mediation sought by Panairjdde resulted in the recommendation that "that proposal two from this page be implemented in the short term, until a consensus can be reached about proposal three". Accordingly, before resuming the editorial process, I am seeking feedback on whether option 2 or 3 of the former survey is more acceptable. Please state (or re-state) your opinion in the follow up survey on Talk:Constantine XI. Thank you for your time, Imladjov 14:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Assistence of an experienced wikipedian is needed
Dear Adam, I would be very greatfull if you answer my question concerning the NPOV policy. Regards,--AndriyK 11:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

John II Comnenus/Komnenos
Looking at the size of this talk page, I wonder if you might be a little busy, but if you're interested and you get the time I'm looking to get the article on John II Comnenus improved. After all the helpful contributions everyone made to Manuel I Comnenus, and its selection as a Featured Article, I think it would be great to get the article on John II up to the same standard. Suggestions on the talk page for the article would be much appreciated. Thanks! Bigdaddy1204 13:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Marrtel's MoS-Wonkery on Wheels
Of late, User:Marrtel (talk • contribs) has been busy moving assorted pages around. I have no problem with that. What I do have an issue with is the user's habit of editing the redirects which result, and in some cases creating the redirects which were suggested as alternative names, so as to require admin intervention to move them back. Equally annoying, the user never, ever fixes the double redirects. Note that User:Wknight94 (talk • contribs) noticed the redirect fiddling first.

Specific examples:
 * Article originally named Philip Halsten, a bizarre choice of name. Marrtel moves article to Philip I of Sweden, I move it back and ask that it be discussed. In discussion on talk page, I note that Filip Halstensson is the name used in reliable sources. Marrtel moves article, creates Filip Halstensson redirect (which doesn't actually point to the article, another gripe).
 * Article written by me, named Harald Maddadsson per the sources consulted. Original page name was adequately disambiguated and shorter. It doesn't seem to be indulging in WP:OWNership to suppose that the creator's opinion on the article name might be canvassed.
 * originally at Maol Íosa V of Strathearn, moved to Malise V, Earl of Strathearn, and so on for many others. What the point of this was, I have no idea.

This looks like MoS-Wonkery gone mad. You may like to look at the edits which resulted from the editor moving articles on medieval Scots Mormaers (not Earls, but we are stuck with Earls unless we move them all to X, Mormaer of Y) around to suit his/her interpretation of the MoS. I can't see any benefit to what the user is doing, and the cleanup work which (s)he leaves behind is taking up other editors' time. The total absence of discussion, and the unwillingness to wait and see what the views of other editors might be, is worrying. [ User:Angusmclellan (talk • contribs) and User:Calgacus (talk • contribs) and User:Fornadan (talk • contribs) for cleanup edits in Marrtel's wake.]

Let me know if I'm being unreasonable ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine page moves
Hi. I just noticed you are an administrator, so I want to run this by you. I have been editing articles on Byzantium in accordance with the discussion on Talk:Constantine XI, and have also moved some pages accordingly (since it seems that matching article title and usage within the article is important to some contributors). However, there are several pages in which a pre-existing redirect does not permit the move without the intervention of an administrator. In this case the information is fully usable and accessible regardless of the form one enters in the search engine, but for the sake of consistency the redirects should be reversed. Would you be willing to undertake this? At present, the pages in question are (to my knowledge) only 5: Thanks in advance, Imladjov 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thomas Palaeologus should redirect to Thomas Palaiologos
 * Constantine IX Monomachus should redirect to Constantine IX Monomachos
 * Michael Psellus should redirect to Michael Psellos
 * Romanus II should redirect to Romanos II
 * John I Tzimisces should redirect to John I Tzimiskes


 * Thanks for getting this done so quickly. I just cleaned up any resulting double redirects and now everything should work fine.  I will bring to your attention any additional pages that may require a similar move, I hope that would be ok.  Thanks again, Imladjov 23:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A new user has unilaterally decided that the name Stefan used by all rulers of the Nemanjić dynasty in Serbia was actually a title and moved a number of these articles accordingly. Although in some cases it can be shown that the name Stefan was adopted as a regnal name, it was used intrinsically in royal and imperial documents, and is standard in modern historiography, be it Serbian or foreign (e.g., the standard English treatment, John V.A. Fine Jr., The Late Medieval Balkans, Ann Arbor, 1987). I have fixed what damage I could, but the following have to be fixed by an administrator because of pre-existing redirects. The following redirects should be reversed as follows: I hope you can fix these. Thanks in advance, Imladjov 22:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Radoslav I of Serbia should redirect to Stefan Radoslav of Serbia
 * Vladislav I of Serbia should redirect to Stefan Vladislav I of Serbia
 * Vladislav II of Syrmia should redirect to Stefan Vladislav II of Syrmia
 * Thanks a lot, Imladjov 22:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Ramla
Hey Adam

I just read through all this... fascinating. I didn't know that you were an admin... but I'm new and don't know much. I saw your comment somewhere about being stuck using your real name. Ironically, I had been thinking about changing to my name. After reading all the negative things here however, I've changed my mind.

As far as fixing up the article, I will if I find some solid, quotable information. I'm just beginning my research, though. I was going to make a comment about how busy I was... but I concede that you are busier.

--Dogfish 05:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Saint John Maron
Hi Adam -- I just took a look at this article, & yes the comment about a "Frankish royal family" ruling Antioch is odd. (IIRC, Antioch was part of the Muslim world at that time.) What I suspect is behind this phraseology is that the Arab word for European ("Ferenji") is adapted from the word "Frank" or "French" due to the number of Frenchmen during the Crusades, & a native Arabic speaker, for whom English is a second language, may have confused the two words; the use of "Frank" dates back to the original contribution, which was made by an anonymous editor. (Take a look at List of words meaning outsider, foreigner or "not one of us", & notice how the Arabic term has permeated thru the lands around the Indian Ocean!) And yes, the creators of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine stole the word to name that alien race. -- llywrch 14:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Heraclius
Good day to you. Yes, of course I read it; pretty flimsy reasoning was my thoughts, certainly not enough to contravene established usage. Who's side did you believe I am on, btw? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not the case for the Emperor Heraclius, he is called "Heraclius" in most recent works. I see what you mean with the apparent variation in my thinking. My reasoning is based on usage my the most respected contemporary historians and, and it is not unconnected, ethnic identity. So I think it is quite right to have Malcolm III of Scotland as Máel Coluim III of Scotland, but the Emperor Heraclius is a Roman Emperor; few historians would call him Herakleios, although this is a fair rendition of the Greek spelling. Moreover, I find it extremely distasteful to see past multinational rulers being claimed by one ethnic group, and in the case of these rulers, I'd prefer English names (as, apparently, do historians). For Hraclius the Patriarch, maybe he does get called Eraclius; but I checked a couple of my books on high medieval England, and these guys (e.g. Bartlett), employ Heraclius. I don't object to the name Eraclius per se, but I think there needs to be more discussion on that page. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ilghazi-İlgazi
In fact, it seems to be the case, that "Ilghazi" is the most common spelling in English. I will put a redirect from İlgazi and we can keep it as such. He lived in a time when the Arabic script and spelling ruled (in his envoronment). As long as it is not too alien to contemporary Turks, I see no problem with it. I will also direct Artukid dynasty and other possible variants to Artuqid dynasty. p.s. I know that Ilghazi has behaved somewhat rudely to Kevin Costner. It was only a film though. Regards Cretanforever

Spelling of Midiæval
Because it's right. You don't see 'thru', 'nite', 'filosofy', on Wikipedia.Cameron Nedland


 * What do you mean I can't spell it properly on my own? Are you talking about making an æsc?Cameron Nedland 23:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't but I'll stop anyway. I was only changing the ones that were historically æ. For instance, I never changed aer to ær. That's just incorrect.Cameron Nedland 02:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't change it!Cameron Nedland 00:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oooooh, I figured it was appropriate since it was an article about ligatures...Cameron Nedland 02:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke?
What's with this? (And why does it redir to Chemistry of all things?) SB Johnny 12:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks :). SB Johnny 15:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Style box
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution. It's well before my time though. User:Jtdirl may be able to tell you more. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess no one got around to installing them...I still haven't finished. I probably won't go through the articles until I figure out whether the birth and death year should go after the papal name (as it is on most pages) or the pre-papal name (as it is on some more recent popes&mdash;which generally adhere to the style guidelines more completely) and the preferred structure of the first sentence (not that these have to be uniform). savidan(talk) (e@) 21:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan persay. The only pages (I think) I have installed them on so far is for Popes who are also Saints (or Venerable or Blessed), for which I think the template makes more sense. I outline this problem in detail on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. I probably should have referred you to that the first time you asked, as well. ;) savidan(talk) (e@) 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine stuff
Hey Adam, thanks for the comment. I think, after a few days of arguing with everyone on Talk:Constantine XI (and, really, that's among the most absurd places imaginable for this debate. I suppose it's better than having it at, I don't know, Napoleon III of France, but only marginally.), I have come down to more or less your opinion - I don't particularly like the result, but it's not incredibly horrible, and it's not worth the kind of sustained effort that would be required to change it back. Still a bit disheartening, though. And I do agree with your reasoning on the second vote - it's better to have consistent names than a policy of using inconsistent names, which is ridiculous. But I just don't think it was fair to exclude the fully Latinized option for absolutely no reason, except that a misguided mediator said so. john k 09:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agnes of France (Byzantine empress)
I mention this because you have recently edited on that page. I have added to the talk page Talk:Agnes of France (Byzantine empress) a template, as you'll see if you follow the link, meaning that I'm keeping an eye on the page. (I happened to see this in use on another page I watch, and I'm wondering whether it will turn out a good idea or not.) Obviously I don't mean to claim anything exclusive, and it is (I believe) possible for other users such as you to put additional names in this template if you want to. Please feel free to comment! Andrew Dalby 14:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006
The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) @ 23:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NO!
Don't edit my things when I am wroking on them you asshole!


 * AND YES! I WILL USE THE PREVIEW BUTTON! BUT I AM TRYING TO WORK ON IT! GIVE ME TIME FFS, ILL MAKE SURE IT DOESNT LOOK SO BAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.0.221 (talk • contribs)


 * Done, is that ok? The background did look bad, but I have made the text and box smaller now, as with the image.

Peel Region
you deleted the counter argument in the Peel Region story. You are not abiding by the requirement for balance and giving a slanted version of the issue beteen Mississuga and Peel based on whats posted. This is Canada not China... —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDoo (talk • contribs)

made changes to the Article for discussion. Please review and advise what you don't like so we publish a balanced view of the Regional Structure in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Regional_Municipality_of_Peel%2C_Ontario

—Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDoo (talk • contribs)

The term 'Literal' in Byzantine Cuisine
Yet again bishop you refuse to show basic civility towards me. I used the term 'melting pot' and 'literal' together because of the article being about cuisine. Leave your dislike of Greeks at the front door, I never do this to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.0.221 (talk • contribs).


 * I think that it would be wise if perhaps this IP stopped editing this article, got a registered username and started contributing constructively to other articles so that there is little for you and this IP to have to work on, or alternatively, without meaning to be rude, perhaps, if you view it as vandalism, be nice to the vandal and show him a better way, and the IP realise that we are here to build an encyclopedia, rather than have a laugh, then you might be able to work together - Having said that, I would have put thousands of warnings and reports on him already - oh well. Regards Benjamin stewart05 -) 15:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

request
Hi. I would like to move the article Magnus Ladislaus of Sweden to Magnus III of Sweden, where there unfortunately already is a redirect page where I mistakenly have produced too much edit history. Could you delete that redirect page, to make its location free. Marrtel 10:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. Marrtel 20:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Villehardouin etc.
[Copy:]
 * I think it is treated as a surname sometimes, especially when they don't really have a connection to Villehardouin itself anymore. Or, this was my understanding when I created William II Villehardouin a couple of years ago. Adam Bishop 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was wondering about that very point; also as regards the Narjot de Toucy pair that I have just written, and that's why I didn't call them "Narjot of Toucy". They are hardly "of" those obscure French places if they never went there. We come back to the insoluble naming questions (as with Byzantium) of which I had quite enough during my many years as a library cataloguer. On the whole, I am happier to leave this to those who are really interested and just try to follow what looks like sensible practice in neighbouring articles! Andrew Dalby 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Technically the accurate usage is "de Villehardouin" or, in English translation, "of Villehardouin." This has nothing to do with whether or not these rulers had anything to do with the barony of Villehardouin itself, it is just the typical medieval aristocratic family name derived from a benefice.  That being said, although the thought that something was not quite right did cross my mind when I first saw the list of princes of Achaea, I suppose plain "Villehardouin" is tolerable enough to be retained.  Best, Imladjov 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Sorry for the mishap in reverting Love map into a vandalized version. Honest mistake. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 06:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty
Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in.--Panairjdde 22:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes and Alp Arslan's Conversation
Adam Bishop In the article on Romanus IV Diogenes, I restored the conversation which is specifically now quoted directly from Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, word for word, from pages 2112-2113. It is far too famous of a conversation to delete, and you are simply wrong that documentation of it does not exist. It is recorded in slightly different form in every history of the Battle, but I chose Gibbon as his remains to this day the most heavily sourced history of the Empire. old windy bear 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine names: suggested moratorium
On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I request that you reconsider your vote on the discussion itself; the present situation was produced by a deeply flawed attempt at mediation, on the basis of which a few users have displaced a long-held equilibrium. The present discussion is an effort to restore the status quo ante; consensus on that, as a holding position, seems the simplest acceptable solution.  Septentrionalis 15:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A good link on Byzantine Law
Thought you might want to check this out:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/geanakoplos_twoworlds_7.html

User:Mayor Westfall
Hey -- the guy requested unblocking. I didn't, but I did start a post on WP:ANI about this block. I don't disagree with your action, I just feel that if it's a community block, it needs community exposure. Mango juice talk 15:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Eduardo Rivero
Adam, how well do you know Eduardo Rivero? Is there any chance you can help me get him to stop the vandalism he's been doing for the past month or more? I'm tired of always looking for the same set of boring and predictable vandalism to the school articles. (See this short discussion for some background.) --Stephane Charette 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry -- thought you may have known him because of this childish vandalism to your userpage back in June. He was a student at St. George's in Vancouver, and now looks like he's over at Gordonstoun or Schule Schloss Salem, which are the articles he typically vandalises.  --Stephane Charette 01:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)