User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 August 2009–14 June 2010

Parias
Your usual professional job. Surprising that Wikipedia still had no article on the subject.--Wetman (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of comment
Hi Srnec - Thought I'd let you know, in case you haven't seen it, that Sarah777 removed this comment by you as a supposed personal attack on you. When I restored it, she removed it again, and accused me of making a personal attack. I then applied to Masem, who has so far ignored my request that he make a determination. As such, I readded the comment again, and Tfz removed it because Sarah called it a personal attack. I'm not going to readd it again, but I thought you'd like to know. john k (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem about what may seem to be a 'personal attack' is that they are subjective to the person being 'attacked'. This holds true in the legislature of most countries too, in other words it is up to the recipient to complain. Masem is the judge/moderator here and he should deem that Srnec refrain from further similar input regarding Sarah. Whether it be put back in, is up to Masem, but it would be better if that was not done. Tfz     14:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into an argument with you on Srnec's talk page, but people are supposed, at the least, to exercise caution about removing what they believe to be personal attacks on them on talk pages other than their own. Sarah was specifically told not to re-remove talk page comments which she had removed and been reverted for.  If we allow everybody to just start removing comments they don't like from talk pages, that creates all kinds of problems. john k (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of what you say, and have myself removed irritating banal from my talk page on a couple of occasions, and indeed left more strident stuff in. The issue goes to incidents a week ago, and I reckon that it is still a bit raw in many minds, and Chillium did say to remove. Though, I doubt if this incident will be a feature of the talk page, and hopefully a once off thing. Tfz     15:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO, Srnec should've restored his opinon, if he had so chosen to. The matter should've been between him & Sarah777. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The integrity of the talk page is a matter which concerns everyone. john k (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Below, for reference, are the original comment and the two subsequent messages left on Sarah777's talk page, which she removed. Srnec (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This response demonstrates clearly that Sarah has no desire to reason with anybody. She has her conclusions—don't let the facts get in the way. The fact is that when we take into account second, third, fourth, etc. preferences, which is what STV is for, we still find that F wins. This is because there is no consensus that F is the worst option. Many would prefer it to some of the other options presented. Which demonstrates clearly that a good many voters, probably most, do not regard this as a an "F v not-F" debate. If that were the essence of the debate, as Sarah alleges, it would come across in the preferences. It does not. But instead of analysis, argumentation, or insight, we get the distraction of "insulting v non-insulting" with the transparent attempt to bait one of her opponents into a response in kind. Srnec (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== My personal attacks ==

I accused you of having no desire to reason with anybody, of distracting people from serious questions, and attempting to bait your opponents into responses in kind. Then I see this. I stand by my comments. Your childish word play ("oxymoron") is designed solely to arouse anger and distract people from substantive issues. The word play, I should say, is obvious because there is absolutely nothing oxymoronic in the position of favouring a change from the status quo yet accepting the results of the poll no matter what they be. This is a further demonstration that you have no desire to reason at all. In sum, the WP:NPA page tells me to normally comment on content not contributors. But in this case, the contributor is the issue, not the content. So, even if my statement was a personal attack, I stand by it and believe it was entirely justified and acceptable at Wikipedia. Can you follow that reasoning? Perhaps then you will apologise (not to me), and I will have reason to retract my comments. Srnec (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Another stone comment at your glass house talk page ==

On User:John Kenney's talk page you wrote "MackNamee, please don't write 'f***' on Wiki, especially on John's page. He is most likely a refined person. A concept foreign to you I wager." Does telling MickMacNee that the concept of refinement is foreign to him constitute a personal attack? I seem to recall something about a pot and a kettle. . . —Srnec (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Gothic
Just read your comment. Can you sort this out and add whatever you think necessry to the Gothic architecture page?

Amandajm (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't forgotten this request to do what I was hoping someone more qualified would do, but I don't want to rely on GoogleBooks or my own coffee table books, so I am waiting until I have to go to the library to look up some refs. I hope any additions I make will be more or less definitive, so that it is not a battle of the reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Visigothic kings
Hi Srnec, I´ve seen your changes on Erwig, and really I think we should to share opinions, I agree as you that Hispania was the most importante province for Visigoths, however for example Septimania was governed by Visigoths and it wasn´t in the Iberian Peninsula, and secondly, Galicia or Gallaecia was another part for Visigoths, maybe it may be considered geographically as "Hispania" but not politically. You can see it in the Visigothic documents:

Hispaniae, Galliae et Gallaetiae, fines Spania, Gallie, Gallecie or Spaniae et Galliae vel Gallitiae , in provinciam Galliae vel Gallicie atque in omnes provincias Hispaniae

Please, study my proposal and I am sure we can arrange something for the article. Thanks, and best regards.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The distinction between Gallaecia and Hispania is like the distinction between Spain and Portugal. It arises from a change in the meaning of words because of politics. Gallaecia was always a part of Hispania, but because the peninsula was divided politically in the territory of the Suevi and that of the Goths for so long, with the Goths preferring to call themselves rulers of Hispania, it eventually came to be that Gallaecia and Hispania were distinguished. Beyond the Visigothic period, however, this distinction disappears again. In the High Middle Ages "Hispania" denotes the whole peninsula or at least those parts of it under the rule of the self-proclaimed successors of the Visigoths, including Galicia. In the same way, Spain today refers to one country exclusive of Portugal, but historically it referred to all the countries of the peninsula, including Portugal, collectively. This usage did not disappear in Visigothic times. Note John of Biclar calls Leovigild rex Gothorum in Hispania (King of the Goths in Spain), exactly as our leads long had it.


 * I think the best way to describe the Visigothic kings is as "Kings of the Visigoths". Naming Hispania, Gallaecia, and Septimania (not a preferred Visigothic term) in the lead introduces confusion for the reader, I believe. We have an article called Visigothic Kingdom that needs improving. That is where we should explain the territorial changes the kingdom experienced.


 * I see that you have been doing some work on the Kingdom of Galicia article. It looks good, but the English needs some work. Perhaps I will get around to doing some copyediting there. Srnec (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the English in the Kingdom of Galicia article needs no some work, but a lot of work :), my traslation is very very basic and I will be very thanked if you can make revisions, thanks.


 * Going back to the speaking about Hispania, Septimania and Galicia, I like really your propost: ""Kings of the Visigoths". Naming Hispania, Gallaecia, and Septimania", although as you say Septimania wasn´t a very usual term (it was more usual "Gallia" or sometimes "Gallia Narbonensis"). With the term Gallaecia/Gallicia/Galicia, I´d like to do few apretiations:


 * I agree with you, since Roman times the Iberian Peninsula was known as "Hispania" (it was a geographical concept mainly), as you said, when Suevi/Suebi arrived to Gallaecia, this province adquired a status of kingdom and when finally the Visigoths stay in Hispania, even Hispania carried on to be considered a geographic concept (Iberia or Iberian Peninsula) but now with a political concept too. Gallaecia was a kingdom ruled by Suevi monarchs and Hispania was known politically as the Visigothic kingdom.

,
 * But observe again the words of John of Biclar (|Iohannes Biclarensis Chronicon), it can help us:


 * When John says: Athanagildus rex Gothorum in Hispania (ANNO II MEMORATI PRINCIPIS (568)), he is speaking about before of year 585, Gallaecia wasn´t even ruled by Visigoths, so this concept of Hispania was political and it didn´t inclue even Gallaecia. Same John in "ANNO VIII MAVRICII IMPERATORIS, QVI EST RECCAREDI REGIS IIII ANNVS (590)" said: Sancta synodus episcoporum totius Hispaniae, Galliae et Gallaetiae in urbe Toletana praecepto principis Reccaredi, and it shows us that politically there were 3 territories. It is very important because altough Visigoths pretended unifique Hispania we often recognized 3 national or political entities, and surprinsinly in the end of Visigothic state it was even so, as you can observe in the "Concilium decimum Toletanum", (anno 683), where even we can read: in provinciam Galliae vel Galliciae atque in omnes provincias Hispaniae, Hispania is still considered like a political concept too.


 * And, still during the next centuries the political concept of Spain didn´t inclue neither Narbonensis nor Galicia. In one hand we can see it in normal documents and also in medieval cartography, for example: in the Libellus sacrosyllabus or Libellus episcoporum (year 794): fidei ad provincias Galliciae ac Spaniarum, during the next years we can apreciate the same, in the Alfonso III Chronicles "Rotensis", Galicia Christians told about Spain like the neighbour land: Sarracenorum quid ad eum ex provinciis Spanie avenerant, in Albeldensis Chronicle we can find "Adefonsus (...) exercitum mobit et in Spaniam intravit", and the kings like Silo (in Gallaecia) "cum Spania pacem habuit". In Codex Calixtinus we can read: "Yspaniam et Galleciam", "tellurem Yspanicam et Gallecianam", "Hyspani scilicet et Galleciani", "totam terram Hispanicam et Gallecianam". The list is very long durin the middle ages.


 * In other hand, the cartography show it too.


 * In any case, I believe the Visigothic kings articles should show the govern not only in Hispania, also in Septimania (Narbonensis) and Gallecia.


 * Apologies for this Bible. thanks for your attention.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No need for apologies. It's all very interesting. I suppose the lead for the Visigothic kings' articles could be amended to "King of the Visigoths in Hispania, Gallaecia, and Gallia" without unduling confusing the reader, but I am not convinced that the geographical distinction between Hispania/Gallaecia was universal in the Middle Ages. This should still be explained in the Visigothic Kingdom article. The title imperator totius Hispaniae suggests though that the old Roman conception of Hispania lingered (or reappeared?) in Spanish political contexts, especially as there always classicising pressures at work, as in the case of the revival of "Septimania" in Carolingian times. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your patience. Really when I changed the articles about Erwig or Recadero, I tried to show the three territories ruled by Visigoths. I´ll try to give you dates which demostrate the political distinction between Hispania/Gallaecia during the middle ages was universal, and I´ll try to explain with my bibliographic dates what means the title imperator totius Hispaniae (because it´s not really reapparence of "Hispania"=Iberian Peninsula).


 * During Visigothic monarchy, Hispania became considerate like "Gothorum provincia" while Gallaecia was considerate politically provincia/regnum suevorum, so when the Muslims defeated Visigoths, Muslim conquered politically "Hispania", but this didn´t inclue Gallecia, from this moment, Gallaecia was the name for the norwest Christian land, and Spain is mainly the name for the Muslim land, you can see it for example in the Otia Imperiala where told "regnante in Yspaniis Abiulaz (Al-Hakam I" and the same is in the Annales Regni Francorum and Anales Bertinianos. However when the Caliphate fall (1031), Muslims territory was divided ans finally they lost their economical and militar superiority, the Christians in Iberia take it for imposing a oppressive tribute. The Christians kings began to express this theorical superiority over Muslim kings (and over Spain -mainly the Muslim area but not Gallaecia), presented themselves like "dominators, rulers, lords or emperors", so you can observe it clearly in the Christian titulation;


 * For example, in the Historia Roderici, we can read about the Castilian king, Sancho as "Santius rex tocius Castelle et dominator Hypania", it is because Sancho applied tribute to taifas. They used this title to show their ""power"".


 * Alfonso VI used "imperator Hispaniae" with the same intention, show himself as lord of Muslim, and he alternate his titulation:
 * "Adefonsus rex legionis et totius Hispanie imperator"
 * "Reganante rex Adefonsus in Castella et in Legione et in Gallecia"
 * "rex Galliciae" (Orderic Vital)


 * Also Urraca, Alfonso´s daughter did never rule the Iberian Peninsula, but she received parias of the Muslim kings, and she alternate her titulation:


 * "Regnante Urraka regina"
 * "Ego Urracha Dei gratia totius Hispanie et Galletie regina" (15th April, 1115)
 * "domna Urraca in Galletia imperante" (23th May, 1089)
 * "totius Gallecia imperatrix"


 * Surprisingly, still in the year 1205, the pope Inocence III wrote "ad partes Hispaniae et Galiciae" and "Gallecianorum dux et Yspanorum" (altough now, "Galletia" mean Christian kingdoms in northwest). Even, Cluny kept this distinction until year 1250, if it can see in documens as: "omnium rerum Hispaniam preter Galiciam possidemus" . Procura ergo, ut Romanus ordo per totam Hyspaniam et Gallitiam (Pope Gregory VII)


 * All Iberian Muslim authors in middle ages speaks about Gallecia and Hispania, for example Ibn Hawkal said: "Spanish prefer Franks to Galician to find allies for their sons", the references in Muslim authors are the most clear.


 * Since Suebic, the political concept of Gallecia was kept until thirtyth century. But, going back to Visigoths, I believe "king of Visigoths" is better than "king of Hispania" and if we speak about Hispnia we should cite Narbonesis and Gallaecia, I believe. What do you think about all this?. Apologies again, histoty it´s a too exciting theme for me :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuninho Martins (talk • contribs) 15:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Flainez table
. . . needs another line - Justa Fernandez was daughter of Fernando Vermudez and sister of queen Jimena, making the last connection a generation closer. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't recall that being mentioned in my reading, but I've revised the table. And have your concerns with Fortún Ochoiz been answered, or do you think the article needs revision? Srnec (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Haven't had time to get back to it yet. Agricolae (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Turibius or not Turibius? That is the question
Taking out the infobox was may be necessary but it made clear one thing. Turibius was bishop of Astorga, lived and died in Astorga in the 5th Century and his remains where transfered to Liebana. Most of references assimilate him to Turibius "the monk", founder of the Monastery of Santo Toribio de Liebana and, eventually, bishop of Placencia. Both Saints of the Roman Catholic church.

There is, chronologically, Turibius the bishop and then Turibius the monk. 100 years separates them. The interwikis to the Spanish and Galician wikis are de facto misleading but their content is ok (only the name of the article is problematic). I can't find a good bibliographic reference to back this up but the last time I visit the monastery there were two of them buried in the monastery. The only reference I found come from the summary of a conference by Father Loring.

El hecho de que en este Monasterio estén enterrados los restos de los dos Toribios se presta a confusiones. Sin embargo, entre los dos hay cien años de diferencia. Pero tienen algunos puntos de coincidencia: los dos predicaron contra la herejía de Prisciliano, y los dos eran oriundos de Liébana.

Santo Toribio «el monje» nació a fines del siglo V, probablemente en Turieno, pueblo situado en las inmediaciones del Monasterio. Floreció por los años 530, como consta por una carta laudatoria que le envió Montano, Arzobispo de Toledo, fechada el año 527.

A mediados del siglo VI juntó cinco compañeros y tomaron el hábito y Regla de San Benito, que en aquel tiempo comenzaba a florecer. Con ellos fundó el convento de San Martín de Liébana, que fue, en antigüedad, el segundo o tercer monasterio benedictino de España, ya en tiempos de San Benito. Santo Toribio «el monje» fue nombrado Obispo de Palencia, según el grabado de Juan Petrosqui.

Santo Toribio, Obispo de Astorga, nació en esta ciudad por el año 400. Fue nombrado Obispo de Astorga por el Papa San León Magno el año 448. Murió en Astorga el 16 de Abril del 460. En el interior de la iglesia de Santo Toribio, y en ábside del evangelio, se conserva una estatua yacente policromada de Santo Toribio, realizada en madera de olmo de Burgos, a principios de siglo XIV.

F. Loring cites the book of Pedro Álvarez (1995), "El Monasterio de Santo Toribio de Liébana y el Lignum Crucis", ISBN: 84-605-2539-2. The wikipedia page on Turibius the monk is still to be created. Do you know any other reference for backing this up?

Thanks Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I created one at Turibius of Liébana. It is based largely on your source, but since the other cited sources corrobate it and he cites a third source (which I have not checked), I think it is trustworthy/reliable. Srnec (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Felicitaciones
Hola Srnec, te escribo en castellano ya que de ingles entiendo poco. Estoy siguiendo tus artículos de la Edad Media española y la verdad es que estas haciendo un trabajo acojonante, es una pena que no edites en wikipedia en castellano, por que la verdad la wiki en español se pierde mucho sin tus contribuciones. Te escribo todo esto dando por hecho por las referencias que citas en tus artículoos que entiendes a la perfección el castellano. Saludos y lo dicho, una pena que no estes en la wikipedia en español. --Truor (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Adelchis, son of Desiderius.jpg
File:Adelchis, son of Desiderius.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Adelchis, son of Desiderius.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with Spanish subjects
Ciao! I am back... hope you are well! I wanted to ask your review help for the numerous articles I am expanding (translating from Spanish!! This is new for me) about medieval taifas. I've noticed Spanish articles here are mostly very poor in quality, detail, style etc. I wonder why. You can find the list of my recent additions in my contrib page... Ciao and thanks from --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been working on some twelfth-century Spanish aristocrats of late, but I have some work in progress for more an I plan to do an overhaul of Sancho III of Navarre soon. I see your work on the taifas and at expanding Ferdinand II. I may work on doing some of the same if I have time, but I'm busy in the real world right now. Srnec (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Women in Church history
An article on such an important topic is not best left to one editor. Of Aquinas we learn that "he began his argument of women and their involvement in the creation story by quoting Aristotle's misogynist view of a woman as being 'a misbegotten man'." Of course, Aquinas "began his argument" by describing the view he was to oppose. Aquinas agrees with Aristotle to a point, but his conclusion as against The Philosopher is this: "On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female." I'm not sure that somebody who can't properly read Aquinas should be editing articles on church history at all. Srnec (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Women in Church history is a fairly broad topic, but I feel that we can organize the content through several successive stages of history : Paul of Tarsus and women, women in the Patristic age, women in the Middle Ages, women during the Reformation, women in the Victorian era, etc. Thomas Aquinas obviously lived in the Middle Ages, so information about his views would best belong there. ADM (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Women in the Middle Ages
The article is still stubbish, but there is no reason to remove information beyond 800 AD, since the Middle Ages extends to Aquinas and others until 1453 AD. ADM (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Women in the patristic age
Divorce, adultery, infanticide, and prostitution are hardly "female demands". Srnec (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Women today, and indeed women at the time, consider them to be women's issues, women's rights or female freedoms. If you can find a better formulation for this phrase, that's fine with me, but I think it makes sense to remember that these are traditional political requests of women living in societies that are culturally dominated by men. ADM (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I won't impose my POV—which is that defining the right to exit a marriage, break one's vows of fidelity, kill children in the cradle, and exchange sex for money as the specific demands of females, implying that men want these things to a far lesser degree or not at all, is highly insulting to the fairer sex—on the article. Srnec (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Emadam
Thank you for your edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emadam (talk • contribs) 05:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye out
We might have to keep an eye on Emadam. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Disinfobox pushers at Talk:Lotharingia
I have recently been advised by Spshu "Either take part in the discussion or stop reverting the infoboxes." And, which expresses the heart of the problem:  Lotharingia is the same as Lorraine" Even before I posted at Talk:Lotharingia, I was aware that anyone who can assert to me "Lotharingia is the same as Lorraine" is unlikely to listen to anyone or read anything. Another one of pretty much the same genre at that talkpage is asserting that infoboxes are the "default position" at Wikipedia. I'm thinking, as you have contributed competent information at Lotharingia and generally seem the Soul of Sense, you might look in.... --Wetman (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ciao
Ciao! Ive just finished expanding abd ar-Rahman III to a decent status. As usual, it'd need some cleanup as my English is not that good. Can you help? Thanks much in advance and have fun.... --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do, but not today. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Srnec (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gerard of Florennes
Your vetting of my effort would be most welcome.--Wetman (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found several articles that may be of use. I'll look at them later. Srnec (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Russell, J. B. (1962) A propos du synode d'Arras en 1025, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 57(1):66–87.
 * Noiroux, J.-M. (1954) Les deux premiers documents concernant l'hérésie aux Pays-Bas, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 49:842–55.
 * Landes, Richard. (1987) The Dynamics of Heresy and Reform in Limoges: A Study of Popular Participation in the "Peace of God" (994–1033), Historical Reflections, 14(3):467–511.
 * Brown, Elizabeth A. R. (1986) Georges Duby and The Three Orders, Viator, 17:51–64.

Raymond I of Pallars and Ribagorza
That's what I get for editing without turning on my brain. Agricolae (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What's worse is how many times I had to go over it in my head before saving! Srnec (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Place Names
Hi Srnec, thanks for your help and corrections. I write you because I saw you change the place names "Xuvia" to "Jubia" and "Caaveiro" to "Caabeiro", really I don´t understand why you are changing it, I saw they are the oficial names. What´s your reason to change it?. Thanks and best regards.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Officiality is irrelevant here. All that matters is that the English reader be informed of all the prevalent forms in English texts. In this case the cited sources use "Jubia" and "Caabeiro". It's not a big deal as long as the reader is made aware that they are the same thing, since the reader will be confronted with both in his reading in English. Srnec (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Understand me Srnec, I want to colaborate with you really, I don´t wish a confrontation of opinions. I could understand that Jubia or Caabeiro are prevalent forms in English (unfortunatelly it shows me a rare corrupcion about Galician names in English texts, now I begin to know the real credibility that these authors have about Galician history...!) but, ok, I agree you and I accept it. However I can´t understand why you changed the name of some bishops of Dumium (Dume in Portuguese and Galician, Dumio in Spanish) for "bishop of Mondoñedo" when the first bishop of Mondoñedo he was Martinus during 1219-1248. If it is why in English texts they say "Mondoñedo" (although it´s completly false) nothing yet can surprise me, and finally I think it´s better for the English wikipedia to publish nothing about Galician history..all is whole of fakes and basic errors. I can´t believe. Please don´t take it as a opinion against you, it´s just an attempt for find coherence.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Understand me, Nuninho, I'm working with the sources, both English and Spanish. Jubia and Caabeiro are both just Spanish spellings. The locations are in Spain. It is unsurprising that English sources might prefer more recognisable and pronounceable Spanish variants. As to Mondoñedo, Rudesind I was called Mendunieto digens in a contemporary chronicle (see here). Another source (Fletcher, 62) records that the episcopal see was moved "from San Martín de Mondoñedo to Villamayor de Brea (the present town of Mondoñedo)" in 1113. See also the Catholic Encyclopedia: "the church of St. Martin of Mondoñedo, one of the best of the ancient churches of this region, had been the cathedral church since 866." Srnec (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand you Srnec, and believe me, I want to colaborate with you, I think you like Medieval Times, and I think I could help you with Galician/Portuguese themes. Firstly I´d like to speak about Mondoñedo, because it´s a confusing theme. We must separate two concepts: name of the "bishopric" (Dume/Dumio/Dumium) and the place name where is the sede of this bishopric, Mondoñedo. The titulation of the bishops during the 9th-10th wasn´t "Minduniensis" but "Dumiensis".
 * Your reference to Albeldensis says: "Rudesindus Dumio Mendunieto degens" and you can see the titulation in the contemporary documents, I copy you few:


 * Savaricus, Dumiense episcopus, confirma.- sub Christi nomine, Recaredus Lucense sedis episcopus. Year 912 (García Álvarez, M.R., Ordoño Adefonsiz, CEG 63. )


 * Brandericus eps. Tudensis. Savaricus eps. Dumiensis. Recaredus eps. Lucensis. Year 916 (Flórez, H., España Sagrada 17, 18, 19 e 22.)


 * sub Christi nomine Rudesindus aepiscopus Dumiense sedis confirmans. Sanctius rex hanc concessionem a nobis facta. (Duro Peña, E., El monasterio de san Esteban de Ribas de Sil).


 * Xpi. nomine Savaricus Dumiense sedis eps. cf. sub Xpi. nomine Ouecco sedis regis Ouetensis. Year 924. (López Ferreiro, A., Historia de la Santa Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela.)


 * vobis pontifici nostri donni Rodesindi, episcopi Dumiensis sedis et fratribus Deo. Year 925.(Fernández de Viana y Vieites, J.I., González Balasch, M.T., Pablos Ramírez, J.C. de, "El Tumbo de Caaveiro", Cátedra 3-4.)


 * atque Rudesindus, Sancti Martini Dumiensis monasterii episcopus. Year 927. (Sáez Sánchez, E., "Notas y documentos sobre Sancho Ordoñez, rey de Galicia", CHE 11.)
 * Ermegildus Iriensis ecclesiae eps. atque Rudesindus sci. Martini Dumiensis monasterii eps. (Flórez, H., España Sagrada 17, 18, 19 e 22. 927)


 * Christi nomine Rudegindus, Dei gratia de dumiense sedis episcopus, confirma. signum et in signo: ego, Osorius. Year 933. (Rodríguez González, A., Rey Caíña, J.A., "El Tumbo de Lorenzana", EM 8.)


 * (..)sunt bona a deo omnino impetrari. adeo ego Rudesindus Dumiensis episcopus, cum peccatorum mole depressus. Year 942. (Díaz y Díaz, M.C., Pardo Gómez, M.V., Vilariño Pintos, D. (est.) Ordoño de Celanova, Vida y Milagros de San Rosendo.)


 * sub diuina potentia ego Rudesindus Dumiensis aepiscopus hanc concessionem a me facta et post nomen saluatoris. Year 942. (Díaz y Díaz, M.C., Pardo Gómez, M.V., Vilariño Pintos, D. (est.) Ordoño de Celanova, Vida y Milagros de San Rosendo.)


 * Christi minister Rudesindus, Dumiensis episcopus, cf. Ranimirus rex. Year 960. (Arias Cuenllas, M., "El monasterio de Samos". AL 70.)


 * Stephano Zamorensi, Petro Astoricensi; Pelagio Dumiensi, Martino Auriensi. Year 1154. (Risco, M., España Sagrada 40- 41.)


 * Petrus archiepiscopus compostellanus. Pelagius martini dumiensis episcopus, Adam hauriensis episcopus. Year 1172. (Domínguez Casal, Mª. M., El monasterio de Santa María de Meira y su colección diplomática.)


 * I repeat, the name of the Bishopric and the place name where is the Sede are diferents.


 * During the 11th century, the Bishopric changed from Dumium/Dumio/Dume to Vallibria, and the place changed from Mondoñedo to Villamayor/Vilamaior. So, the documents explains it again:


 * Munio vallibriensis, Petrus lucensis, Didacus auriensis, Hugo portugalensis. Year 1114. (López Ferreiro, A., Historia de la Santa Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela).


 * Petrus Lucensis episcopus conf. Munio Vallibriensis episcopus conf. Adefonsus Tudensis episcopus. Year 1123. ( Fernández Catón, J.M., El llamado Tumbo Colorado y otros códices de la iglesia Compostelana: Ensayo de reconstrucción.).


 * in dominica misericordia Domini, convocatis fratribus Asturicensi, Lucensi, Vallibriensi, Tudensi, Portugalensi, Scemurensi, Salmanticensi, Burgensi, Compostellae celebravit. Year 1124, (López Ferreiro, A., Historia de la Santa Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela).


 * Petrus aurien. episcopus conf. Petrus Dei gratia uallibriensis episcopus conf. comes Pontius de Cabrera. Year 1158 (López Ferreiro, A., Historia de la Santa Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela.).


 * I have the book: "Episcopologio Mindoniense". Enrique Cal Pardo. Santiago de Compostela 2003, CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES, ISBN(13): 9788493302313. In it, the real first bishop of Mondoñedo is "Martiño/Martinho/Martinus" (since 1219). His author is Enrique Cal Pardo. --Nuninho Martins (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a convention in English to name bishops by their seats, not by any titular designation. That is why the most reliable English sources call the bishopric Mondoñedo from the ninth century on. We are free to cite and quote the primary sources, even to translate them, but we cannot interpret them (per WP:OR). In short, the Latin sources are irrelevant here. The English Wiki must follow English scholarly conventions. Srnec (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Saint Gonzalo
Hello! Your submission of Saint Gonzalo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note at T:TDYK. Sorry for bothering - the nom is hitting the bottom of the page. Materialscientist (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pierre de Molins
Hello! Your submission of Pierre de Molins at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism: Infobox:Royalty
Do not blank the Infobox:Royalty template from the articles of Kings. What are you playing at? - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * These articles do not benefit from infoboxes. Why are you adding them? Have you nothing better to do? [Just as an example, let me point out that the infobox you've added to Sancho III of Navarre contains the following inaccuracies: (i) a picture with no relevance to the subject, (ii) a death date that is disputable, (iii) titles he cannot be shown to have held, such as "King of Viguera" and "Emperor of Spain", and (iv) one listed successor when he had four at least teenaged sons who received each a part of his domain. How does this help anyone?] Srnec (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * These articles are on Kings. Kings are supposed to have the infobox, Infobox Royalty. Why are you going around removing them? Have you nothing better to do? I suggest you put Template:Infobox Royalty up for deletion if your personal distaste for them really runs so deep, however, otherwise we go by what is the standard. And the standard is all the peer viewed articles on monarchs.. have infoboxes. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. There is no such consensus and these are not peer-reviewed articles anyway. I have better stuff to do, which is why I'm not going around reverting you a second time. But I see you completely ignored the issues I raised about accuracy. I suppose you've got more important thing to worry about than that. Srnec (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * An example; Suleiman the Magnificent, Anne of Denmark, Catherine de' Medici, David I of Scotland, Mary II of England and Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia. All of these are peer-reviewed FA articles and every single one of them has as an infobox. It is obviously the standard. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * These infoboxes are not acceptable, and I will see what I can do to get a consensus to remove them if you are going to insist on having your way. Srnec (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you're at it again. Until you successfully get a consensus to (A) have the infoboxes removed from peer-reviewed FAs (B) list the infobox for deletion and successful have it deleted, then you are against the standard for monarchs on Wikipedia. This is somewhat similar to your campaign on the Charlemagne article, where one of the most famous monarchs in history didn't have an infobox because you personally thought "infoboxes are hideous" and similar non-rationale. All I can suggest is you either get over the quirk or simply list the infobox for deletion and have it settled definitively once and for all. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Principality of Salerno
Principality of Salerno: why would be problematic an infobox?--Robyvecchio (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Moreso unnecessary than problematic. The lead can sum up everything worth summing up in an infobox. Besides, the status of Salerno is complicated and trying to put that in an infobox misleadingly titled in Italian doesn't serve the reader.
 * Also, might I suggest that you request as uncontroversial (at WP:RM) the move of County of Apulia to Duchy of Apulia. The reason is that although the Italian Wiki has two articles, it's really unnecessary and the history of the Duchy (until the fall of the Hauteville kingdom) is longer than that of the County. If I have time, I may help with expanding this. Srnec (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the use of the infobox is useful to sum up the main information of the country or territory in an orderly fashion so that the user can browse the history of southern italy by countries. for the County/Duchy of Apulia I'm quite happy to do the opposite, merge or else, as long as is not simply redirected to the List of Counts and Dukes of Apulia and Calabria--Robyvecchio (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again with Francia, if infoboxes are so problematic, why don't you file a complain with the wikiproject former countries?--Robyvecchio (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fernando Fernández de Carrión
On what basis is he 'de Carrion'? I don't see it used by either Reilly or Barton, and I am concerned it begs the association with the family of Pedro Ansurez. If you included it just for disambiguation purposes, deriving it from his place of burial, then I would suggest we instead follow his tombstone and at least one charter (perhaps forged but reflecting usage none the less) in calling him "Fernando Fernández of Malgrado". Thoughts? Agricolae (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * José M. Canal Sánchez-Pagín (1984), "Don Pedro Fernández, primer maestre de la Orden Militar de Santiago: su familia, su vida", Anuario de estudios medievales, 14, 47–48, uses "Fernando Fernández de Carrión". Albeit this source is not English and so does not describe English usage, but neither is a Latin charter English... In any case the "de Carrión" does exist only for disambiguation purposes and it does appear to be based solely on the place of his burial. I note that Gómez González de Candespina is the only other example I can think of of this sort of naming (not based on tenencia). "Fernando Fernández de Malgrado", mainly as a translation of his tombstone, would be acceptable to me, however. Srnec (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, there it is. I guess we are stuck with it, then, in spite of my concerns.
 * FWIW, I have completely rewritten the page for Álvar Fáñez, but it could use a second set of eyes. Agricolae (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. I was planning to get to him myself and I have some books checked out of the library that may have some material. Srnec (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Middle Francia
There was a merger proposal in which you participated and the result was "no consensus". Why did you subsequently effect the merger despite that and with no further discussion? More to the point, why do you think (as has been demonstrated by that merger attempt and at least two previous ones) that only your opinion on the topic is important? -Rrius (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The merger was effected long ago. It's the dirty little task of just redirecting that has not been effected. If you read my edit summary you know exactly why I did what I did: because the article lacks sources and there is no reason to keep it when all the material in it can be found at Lotharingia. As to why I think only my opinion on the topic is important? Because only I have actually presented arguments that are not based on procedure (and which after enough trying eventually convinced one other participant). Is your current argument that the article should exist because there is no consensus it shouldn't? Srnec (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is simply dishonest. I made substantive arguments in the merger discussion that you were so quick to dismiss, and it is not my responsibility to repeat those now when confronting the person who ignored the outcome of that discussion. What's more, it is not the first time you deleted the text of the article inappropriately. I thought you might have a reasonable explanation, but you don't. It is a fact that there was a merger discussion that was publicized at relevant pages WikiProjects and that the determination of that discussion was that there was no consensus to merge. Until consensus in favour a merger arises out of fair and honest procedures, that is that. That you think consensus is mere "procedure" is problematic, and I would suggest you reconsider that view if you truly wish to continue at Wikipedia. It is, after all, a fundamental principle. -Rrius (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Having re-read the discussion, I stand by my claims. Consensus is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I think I may be lifting that from somebody, but I can't remember whom. Srnec (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pedro Manrique's seal, obverse.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:Pedro Manrique's seal, obverse.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 01:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Oreja
My link may be too scattershot. Wikipedia has no article Mesnée, which should redirect or link to Retinue, if that were a better article...--Wetman (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Besides retinue and medieval household, there are the synonymous court (royal) (formerly noble court) and curia regis that need sorting out. I thought I would create an article mesnada, but I am having trouble finding good sources. Your link will suffice for now, but retinue would be better if, as you say, that article were. Srnec (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Jean de Jaurgain and the Charte de Alaon
Thanks for the note. I'll check the source. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Ramla
You have added three battles fought in Palestine to WikiProject Turkey/New article announcements list. Can you please see my note in the discussion page. Have a good day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe those articles were added by a bot, certainly not by me, but the Third Battle of Ramla did involve the Seljuk Turks. —Srnec (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Costumbrismo literario
A few months back, at Talk:Costumbrismo, you asked for a translation of es:Costumbrismo literario. I looked at it; it didn't seem particularly scholarly or particularly well-cited, so I decided to work from scratch and find solid sources. I've written my stuff at Costumbrismo: I think it makes more sense to keep literary and visual costumbrismo in a single article, though I wouldn't scream if someone wants to split it up. Anyway, have a look, let me know if there is something you think belongs there that I may have overlooked. I imagine there could be more overview; as I'm sure you know, overview is hard to cite for, and folks here have gotten pretty hard-assed lately about citability. - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggested that translation because es:Costumbrismo is stubby and was no better than the English version, but the costumbrismo literario had information. I had not time to translate it, probably. I agree that the literary and pictorial sense should be kept together, and you've done a very good job on the article. Unfortunate it has so many red links. Srnec (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ponce de Minerva
Hey Srnec, here's a translation:

"Since our father divided the kingdom between us, both you and I are held to share the land and its produce with our magnates, with whose help our forefathers possessed the lost land and repulsed the Arabs. Therefore, as the other magnates, whom you deprived, have returned their fiefs to count Ponce de Minerva, and you would not believe the rumours against them, I return to the continent."

The "vos vestris" and "ego meis" bit literally means "with your magnates and with my magnates" - it would have been much simpler to say "nostris magnatibus" but it is really clarifying "you share with yours and I share with mine", rather than all of them sharing together. I'm not sure about the susurronibus, the subjunctive credere seems out of place, but I guess that's what it says.

For the image, how about this one?

Also, I was going to ask you something - do you know anything about the Frankish expedition to Spain in 1086-7? Aside from Bernard Reilly's book about Alfonso VI of Castile, and some random French chronicles, I haven't been able to find much info about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it probably does mean borders. I thought they might have been on an island, but that makes more sense. Everything else looks good - I'd never heard of Ponce, but your article is huge! For 1087, I looked at all the chronicles Riley-Smith mentions, but I didn't think to check Erdmann, thanks. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Alboin
Hello Srnec :-) I've noted previously that on wikipedia you have been the editor who has shone most interest for Lombard-related topics, and thus I thought you may have been interested to know I've subjected the article Alboin to a radical overhaul as part of a plan to better the quality of the Italian upper middle Ages-related articles, taking advantage from the full availablity online of the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. If you have some time left to spare from the other articles you are working on, maybe you could find of some interest giving a look at the article and offering any criticisms, hints, suggestions that may come to your mind. And don't be afraid of being harsh! Ciao, Aldux (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If I have the time I'll look at it in more depth, but the sources look good. And I am only learning now that the Dizionario is available online! That could have saved me some trips to the library a few years back... Srnec (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Charlemagne : Pepin or pippin
Hello Srnec,

I'm the one who reverted Pippin to Pepin. It happened during the recovery of vandalism where Charlemagne was said to be still alive in December 2009.

At the moment of the recovery, I did not found any discussion about the use of a name or the other. What I did found is an article with the main name Pepin and an alternate name Pippin redirecting to it. I decided that the main name would not only be adequate, but better.

Can you please tell me why you reverted it to Pippin ?

Thanks,

Heracles31 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference between "Pepin" and "Pippin" is like the difference between "colour" and "color", i.e., it doesn't matter, so just leave it alone. You can find discussions about it in the Charlemagne article at both Talk:Charlemagne/Archive 1 and Talk:Charlemagne/Archive 2. The most important thing is consistency within an article and clarity over all articles that the names Pepin=Peppin=Pippin are the same name. The principle I was following in reverting it was the same one as WP:ENGVAR. —Srnec (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer. Because, as you said yourself, it doesn't matter, why are you so emotive about that ? You made an explicit reverse of it in the article, the summary of your edit was clearly against the use of Pepin and, by saying "so just leave it alone", you again show how important it is for you and how angry you are when one choose Pepin instead. You did not revert that solely on the base of WP:ENGVAR. The name Pepin was the only one used in the article, the one of the other main article about him and, because the name is a French one, Pepin would be closer to the original langage. Pepin would even match WP:ENGVAR better. I did not switch back the name to Pepin because I do not wish to create and edit war, but I suggest you to think more about that. Heracles31 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Pepin the Short, especially the section on the requested move and the ones just before and after it. As you should be able to see, I've been thinking about this long enough and my motives are not what you say. Also, you are wrong in asserting that Pepin is a French name. The name originally appears (so far as I know) as Pippinus in Latin sources at a time when French did not yet exist, and its etymology looks clearly Germanic. —Srnec (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply and have a good day. Heracles31 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ponce de Minerva
Hello! Your submission of Ponce de Minerva at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Left another comment at T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Images in List of invasive species in the Everglades
What does it look like on your browser with two right aligned images at the top?

I put two up there because plants do far more damage than animals do, but the animals get more attention, so I my thoughts were to represent plants and satiate the readers who came to find out about animals. I still think this is what should be done, but I can only see what it looks like on my browser, which is fine. --Moni3 (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On my screen, with Internet Explorer (I haven't tried it on my Mac), there is a large white space beside the top image before the lead text begins. If you want the plant image at the top, then I suggest putting the animal image in the animal section (the leadup to the list of invasive animals). I would prefer the animal image in the lead because it is easy for just about anybody to see what it is and what is going on, whereas the plant image has to be explained. Srnec (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I use Firefox, so I will take a look on IE when I can tomorrow. Thanks for the head-up on that, and I'll see if I can code my way around using two images at the top. --Moni3 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at IE today, shifted both images so they appeared at the top as I originally designed the lead, and I noticed no significant change, no extra white space. I think I will contact a forum where I can get advice on how the layout looks in browsers. --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks fine now. Good job! Srnec (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Emperor of Spain
hello Srnec!

I see that you have started some work on the Emperor of Spain article. Great! But you had removed significant in text notes and citations which concerns me. Was this a mistake to remove the intext citations when getting ready for your edit?

Wanting to be informed! ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 16:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * They were not specific citations (page numbers?). I wanted to remove all the material not properly cited, but I left most of it. All the relevant information will be back, since both of Reilly's books are on my list. There is a lot to talk about in an article like this. Srnec (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ena
Arnaut Daniel, in his most recent critical edition, calls the woman Ena ("Pus Raimons e Truc Malecx/Chapten n'Enan e sos decx"); since he is generally considered a more reliable source than two troubadours whose very existence is contested, I have used that spelling in the Raimon de Durfort article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Complainer (talk • contribs) 13:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Humphreys de Bohun
I just came across these pages, and note that the numbering you have used differs from what I am used to seeing, that make Humphrey of the Beard Humphrey de Bohun I, the Humphrey who married Maud de Salisbury Humphrey II, and so on down the line to Humphrey VIII who married Elizabeth of England, and his grandson Humphrey X, the last. This is offset one generation from the scheme you have followed. Were you following a source that had these numbers? If I do a Google Books search for "de Bohun VIII" the first two pages all match the numbering I am used to seeing (for whatever that's worth). Agricolae (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe it comes from the ODNB. I agree that it is not an intuitive numbering scheme and I'm not sure why it is used, except that the first Humphrey is exceedingly obscure compared to the next, whose marriage seems to have made the family's (landed) fortunes in England. Srnec (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, now that I am somewhere with access to ODNB, I see their usage, which you have faithfully followed, but now am puzzled as to the usage. Maybe it is an American vs English thing, but as I said, I have always seen it the other way, in every account of the family I have seen over the past 30 years that used numbers. Normally in cases of ambiguous numbering it is best to avoid the issue with alternative names, but here there is little else to distinguish the men.  Sigh. Agricolae (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Titles of articles on counts of Provence
Hi, I was wondering why these articles have non-standard titles, and it was suggested that you have some reasons for this. Please could you take a look at foot of the thread on WT:NCROY?--Kotniski (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My only reason is that "William I of Provence" (and like) is a perfectly normal way to refer to these men, and more simple than that suggested by the style guidelines, which, contrary to their claims, are not based on any consensus or widespread community discussion. For that reason I do not feel bound to them against common sense and simplicity. But it's not like the form "William I, Count of Provence", although excessive and a touch pretensious, will cause me lost sleep. I would advise, however, that titles that have been acceptable for years only be moved after a request has been put in and a discussion finished in favour. It's the best way to test the accuracy of the guidelines' interpretation of consensus. Srnec (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation - I've made another note at the WT:NCROY thread.--Kotniski (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Bernard Ezi IV
You have reversed an edit of mine on Bernard Ezi IV. I am not sure why you should do this because the first link goes to a redirect page and the second link takes you to a general list of the Earls of Kent. It seemed to me that merging the links to Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent was correct in the context of the article. I hope you can concur and reverse your own edit. Bill Oversixty (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Take another look. The link in your revision of the article is red. You could revert and create it into a redirect, or you could correct it to what you intended, or you could leave it as is. It's up to you. Srnec (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry! I do not know how that happened. I will put it right.Bill Oversixty (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rotrou III of Perche
Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy
Hi Srnec, as a courtesy, you are mentionned in WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Franco-Mongol alliance. Best regards  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  07:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)