User talk:Crispus

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Scientizzle 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Response
Thanks for getting back to me about Flaming turquoise. I've marked the page for deletion and it should be cleared away soon. I appreciate your work here on Wikipedia and really appreciate your reasonable response to my warnings. Leave the jokes to user space and keep up the good work! Thanks, Scientizzle 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian-Latin Wars and Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars
Hi! You've done a great job with those two articles! They cover the topics well, and especially the one related to Byzantium is very thorough while remaining concise. Here are some suggestions:
 * 1) cite book is a good way to cite your sources, so they could all have a single, unified formatand be easier to browse.
 * 2) Generally don't capitalize all words in section headings.
 * 3) Make sure you add the article to the relevant categories (the Bulgarian-Latin Wars one had no categories).
 * 4) Don't link years, centuries, decades in most cases, but do link full dates.
 * 5) Regarding long articles with many sections, try to organize them as tidy and logical as possible, so they could be easier to read (I think the Bulgarian-Byzantine Wars needs some restructuring).

Well, that's it mostly. Bulgarian history is quite underrepresented in Wikipedia (and until recently was very underrepresented), so I hope we could work together to have a good coverage of this extensive topic in the future. Best regards, Todor→Bozhinov 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey you posted me in December about clean-up of one of my articles ive checked it and could you tell me what the hells wrong with it. Thanks King Alaric

Hey its User:king Alaric, I am still trying to sort out this artical on the Roman wars with Antiochus, ive deleted the piece on the battle at Magnesia like was suggested, however you seem to think a better title might be the Roman-Syrain wars i came to change this but i dont know how to change a pages main title if you could tell me i would be most grateful.


 * Greetings! There are four new battles between Bulgaria and Byzantium (Ongala, Skopie, Spercheios, Solun) which are not added in the template. I do not know how to add them, so would you do that? --Gligan 20:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings! I would like to ask you is it a good idea to divide the battles of the Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars in the same manner like those in the Byzantine-Arab Wars. If you agree, we may discuss the possible division and improve the template. Regards, --Gligan 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking very much like you for the division [[Image:Face-wink.svg|20px]]. The only difference was that I did not think of a separate section for Krum's wars, but the idea is very good provided that there are even two more battle in these wars (but 1st Adrianople is the same as Versinikia, so we should remove it). The battle of Ostrovo may go to Samuil-Basil wars, as Peter Dalyan was of Samuil's kin, or we may create a seperate section for Bulgarian rebelions (there was another unsuccessful battle near Solun in 1040). In general I agree with your division: ) Best, --Gligan 10:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Title change
Many Thanks for altering the title of the Roman- Syrain war and i look forward to seeing it being developed. However this page has caused me a major headache im sticking to the Punic wars from now on!!! User:king Alaric

License tagging for Image:Icytrees.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Icytrees.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 06:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiLove


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or maybe jut a random person. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Keep this place a good place. :) King Alaric 16:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)KatxCore

Compromised account?
Greetings -- I was suspecting this might be a compromised account, since you have nothing but a long and excellent edit history, and was just about to block it and post a note at WP:ANI -- were you letting a friend mess around? If that was all it was, no problem. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem... we've had a lot of password crackers recently, so a lot of us are on the lookout for this kind of thing. Antandrus  (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Awards
Pseudoanonymous 16:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with template
Hi,

You may have noticed that an unpleasant edit war has erupted between myself and a newbie user over a template you created, Template:Notable Rulers of Sumer.

The other user, User:Sumerophile, has repeatedly switched the template to be right-justified in the past 2 weeks, and moves the template to the top of the article. Many if not most of these articles are stubs and this causes a long line of boxes extending down the right side of the article many screens longer than the text itself.

Moreover, the information on the template is not suitable for an infobox style. It is a list of related articles and should be at the bottom of an article near the "See also" section, as with other such templates.

He has simply brushed aside my arguments and continues to enforce his own idea of where the template should go over my reverts, causing blocks and warnings for both of us as a result of the ensuing edit war. I have tried in vain to solicit any discussion about this from a third party. Can you please offer your views on this and help us come to a resiolution or consensus? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan
In November 2011 you started a move request at Talk:Taiwan, proposing to add the word "island" to the title. This has been suggested again. Also it is suggested to move the dab to Taiwan. Then it could prominently be explained that the term Taiwan can refer mainly to 5 things: the island, the island group, any of the two provinces and a country, the ROC. That was chronological order I think. See more at: Talk:Taiwan_(disambiguation).

Maybe, in case that is true, state that you support Taiwan Island and Taiwan (island). My preference is Taiwan Island, but both are better than the ambiguous title "Taiwan" for an article that only talks about the island. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverting Director Infoboxes to by Decade
I've changed my opinion. I prefer how they are without the decades.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarify...
You appear to be taking credit for edits ( & ) made by IP user 24.159.56.69. Is that IP yours? - the WOLF  child  04:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just noticed your edit summary; undoing the revert after signing in. Surely you know that editing while logged out is not permitted? - the WOLF  child  04:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Policy
Please be aware that it is Wikipedia policy to provide an explanation when reverting good faith edits. Simply reverting an edit clearly made in good faith that does clear up an article should not simply be reverted. Crispus (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You were reverted by another editor. You reverted them. You know full well that you should have gone to the talk page. I reverted your edit, and you reverted again. Now you're headed for an edit war. Go to the article talk page and make a case for you edits, like you're supposed to. - the WOLF  child  04:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You reverted a good faith edit without providing an explanation. A simple revert with an explanation that the edit is in good faith and when it clears up a part of the article that is poorly written anyway, is how the system should work.  BRD simply is NOT applicable here, because there should be feedback on an edit before a revert is used.  Otherwise, the edit process becomes horribly slow.  So please include an explanation for the reasons on your edits, as per Wikipedia policy "Insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispus (talk • contribs) 2016-02-07T23:31:56
 * You made mass changes to an established article without seeking consensus on the talk page. That's fine... you were being bold. But you were reverted. Once that happened, you should have gone to the talk page to discuss the edits, not revert them back in again. I reverted back to the previous version because I had faith in the editor that reverted your changes, and agreed with him. Since you didn't before, you should have gone to the talk page then but, no... you then reverted again. (And, you've done this twice, on two different articles) You seem to think that your way is the only way and you can revert as often as you like to try and ram your changes into the article. Well, good luck with that... - the WOLF  child  04:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You made mass changes to an established article without seeking consensus on the talk page. That's fine... you were being bold. But you were reverted. Once that happened, you should have gone to the talk page to discuss the edits, not revert them back in again. I reverted back to the previous version because I had faith in the editor that reverted your changes, and agreed with him. Since you didn't before, you should have gone to the talk page then but, no... you then reverted again. (And, you've done this twice, on two different articles) You seem to think that your way is the only way and you can revert as often as you like to try and ram your changes into the article. Well, good luck with that... - the WOLF  child  04:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not simply undo his edit, I took his criticism into account and removed a few of the included wars. So I did not simply start an edit war.  The only edit war that began was when I changed the article where the formatting was all wrong, and my good-faith edits were undone without any consensus.  You seem to think that I am acting in bad faith, but I assure you that I am not, just an infrequent editor that hadn't signed in in a while that saw some changes that needed to be made. Crispus (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, you must be aware that "Occasionally an established editor will edit while logged out. While not usually an egregious issue, there can be some concerns about attribution and privacy.


 * If you made an edit without logging in, you cannot go back and directly tie that edit to your account. If your desire to account for the edit overrides your desire for anonymity, you can log in, make a dummy edit, and add a note in the edit summary about the previous edit." I followed such a policy.  I am only a semi-active user, so when it became clear that my edits were facing hostility, I immediately signed in and took credit for them, as per policy. Crispus (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Siege of the Atuatuci) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Siege of the Atuatuci, Crispus!

Wikipedia editor Galobtter just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Redirecting it to Conquest of Belagae, where it is covered"

To reply, leave a comment on Galobtter's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Aduatuci or Atuatuci
You should have really posted a proposal with rationale before doing that move. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, so that’s how I should have done it. I wasn’t sure, as I hadn’t had an article I had written deleted before.  Thanks for taking me on good faith, guess I’ve glt a good stub to feel respsonsible for expanding now :) Crispus (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes that is the second issue and now there are even 2 articles :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)