User talk:Srnec/Archive, 21 July 2008–23 February 2009

Alfonso VI of León
Alfonso VI of León was crowned King of León when his father dead, and his brother was crowned at the same time as King of Castile. He was not King of Castile until the dead of his brother, and he was also King of Galicia and Toledo. I think the best is call him "Alfonso VI of León" by that reasons and rename the page. --Auslli (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Chalons
Hy there, I'm obliged to tell you that I believe that you were simply too eager with your move of 'Battle of Chalons'. I gave my reasons at Talk:Battle of Châlons. I hope that I explained my reasons in a understandable fashion and that you agree with them. In the case that you don't agree I invite you to reply asap. In the case that you don't reply I'm planning to make the proper move in accordance of Be bold (after two-three days). Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:March of Carinthia
You undid my attempt to make people understand that "March of Carinthia" actually concerns two quite different political entities. The first was a march of the Carlovingian Empire covering Carinthia, the later - which would be better named the "Carantanian or Carinthian March" - was a march of the Duchy of Carinthia covering Styria. If you read again what I had written you may, if you try, understand it after all. Otherwise leave me a note and I'll try better. Or do you mind if I undid your undoing? Marschner (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will look into more closely. Srnec (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 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) 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review requested
Please take note that a deletion review has been requested for the category Category:Mononymous persons which was recently decided to be deleted. You receive this notification because you took part in the preceding discussion. __meco (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Guadalete.
Well done! You have finally done what many before you, including I, have failed to do; bring justice to the article. Tourskin (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for the insert in Franco-Mongol alliance! Cheers PHG (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's a very interesting picture. And a well-sourced interpretation of it. Srnec (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
The August 2008 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) 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Florin (Irish coin)
I noticed that your page move was reverted. I've asked for the redirect page to be deleted. I agree that the article should be moved for consistency with other articles. --HighKing (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cerdanya
Cerdagne is the french name for Cerdanya so I think that it's better the originally name in catalan, whereas doesn't exist an english name for Cerdanya. Sorry for my english. --Vilarrubla (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem (your English). Just to be clear, the original term is Latin, Ceritania. From this developed the Romance versions: French Cerdagne, Catalan Cerdanya, Occitan Cerdanha, and Spanish Cerdaña. I am not sure which of these is "oldest", but all these languages have a long history in the region: the original language was Occitan/Catalan (indistinguishable at an early stage), then Catalan. In upper Cerdagne French becomes common when it becomes part of France; in lower Cerdaña, Spanish is common enough because it is part of Spain. Until the Treaty of Corbeil in 1258, Cerdagne was legally a part of France. With the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659 it was divided between Spain and France. It is and since the Dark Ages always has been a Catalan-speaking region. It just so happens that in a medieval context, for whatever reason (greater familiarity by anglophones with French than Catalan?), the term "County of Cerdagne" is more common (though not by much) than "County of Cerdanya" (if we trust GoogleBook, which backs up my personal experience). Also, let's not forget that for many things (because of this and that) the English word is the same as the French one. Srnec (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Centule VI of Béarn
do you have a source for that article you created just wounding if you do please post it thanksOo7565 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a translation from another Wiki (French? Spanish? Catalan?), hopefully someday I'll get to finishing my work on the Gascon nobility. Srnec (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Gaimar
Hello. I nominated this for clean-up and should have specified why in the edit summary. I was unsure if this should count as a hndis, or given name and surname, or all three. Would you mind having a look at it again and seeing if anything needs changing? Thanks, Hndis (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware: G(u)aimar/Waimar is a given name. In all cases. Geoffrey Gaimar just happens to have two names, methinks. I could be wrong, but that is my impression. Srnec (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Jacopo da Carrara
An article you created has been nominated for deletion. Please see WP:PROD for how to contest this. Thanks, Hndis (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bureba
A tag has been placed on Bureba, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Overmind 900 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Lu rebellamentu di Sichilia

 * Hi there, I added the English translation of the Sicilian text for this article. HTH, --Alessandro Riolo (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 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) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dukes of Bavaria
Hi there. Thank you for you comment and imput. I'm very sorry, I do not understand your suggestion. You want to split the wikitable to enter subheaders? In this case I strongly oppose. The positive effects of a sortabele wikitable splitted is zero, imho. As for the intro. As you see, it's just the copied content of the intros of the subsections and I'm not satisfied with this 'rewritten' part at all. I think of a more prose-style lead, but my English is ... bad. Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I will edit the page and you sill see what I mean. I don't think you'll object. Srnec (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You edit MY List of Dudes of Bavaria? No, feel free to do so. Sebastian scha. (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would just like to know if you have more plans for it, since you are doing a good job and my edits may prove unnecessary. Srnec (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to press all rulers in this one list -- including the kings of wittelsbach at the end of the page. Then I want to try myself at the lead and there should be a Dynasty overview -- giving short background information and linking to {main|house of ...}. The prose sections will be hard, because I don't speak English too well, so I hope on support. Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright. I think your ideas are similar to my own. I can help with prose if there are English issues. (And I think we need dynastic overviews and colours for the Luxembourgs and Salians.) Srnec (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

May you have a look at the Dudes of Bavaria now? I've done my best to structure the List of rulers of Bavaria and tried myself at some short information. Maybe you are able to do a ce? Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
I just skimmed over the wittering about the meaning of "to decimate" and completely missed the original remark that set you off. I've certainly bitten people on less provocation. Thanks for making the change and avoiding the issue. Choess (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All is well. Srnec (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Berthoald/Regino
Hey Srnec, I don't see any English version of Regino either, just a lot of Latin editions and some obscure German studies.

For the Latin, the first bit says:

"Dagobert, son of Clothar, fighting with the Saxons, was wounded gravely by then, and he called for help from his father, who quickly came with an army, and when their Duke Berthoald had been killed, he conquered the Saxons by force, so that he killed all the inhabitants of the land of the virile sex..."

From "qui gladii" to "excessissent" I'm not sure, but I think it is something like "who had died along the length of a sword which he was then carrying", i.e. he ran them all through with swords.

The song is:

"There is a song about King Clothar of the Franks, who went to fight against the Saxons, what a burden would have come forth for the messengers of the Saxons, if Faro had not been struggling against the Burgundians..."

"...When the messengers of the Saxons came in the land of the Franks, where Faro was prince, with the instigation of God they passed through the city of Meaux, so that they would not be killed by the king of the Franks."

The "quam grave" part is odd too, I guess it means "how tough it would have been", i.e. if Faro wasn't busy the Saxons would be in even worse trouble.

I don't really know the background of this period very well, and it doesn't help that 10th century Latin is usually pretty terrible. I hope this helps though! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! By the way, would you be interested in expanding/referencing the thirteenth century parts of Kingdom of Jerusalem? I see you often write about that period, and I'm not sure I'll ever have time for it... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Natanleod
I was very interested in your comments on the discussion page for Natanleod. I have now read up on the matter, particularly from Stephen Oppenheimer's writings, and I am thinking of rewriting the Natanleod article to take account of it. However, it seems to me that it is central to your argument that 'The only reason ... that it has been stated that Natanleod was "not a real king" is that his name is clearly Germanic'. Do you have any reference for this being given as the reason? I should like to be able to give such a reference if possible. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You have confused an anonymous comment for one of my own. I merely tried to show that the Natanleod-as-originally-toponym thesis was over a hundred years old. But if you want my opinion, "Natanleod" looks as likely to be Germanic as Celtic, and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography agrees with me insofar as it makes Netley derive from Germanic roots meaning "wet wood". Srnec (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. You are quite right. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Since this section exists only because I made a mistake, is there any reason for not deleting it? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I generally do not delete anything from my talk page. I just archive it eventually. This way it is all out in the open and I can never be accused of hiding anything, as editors whose talk pages are riddled with accusations and complaints often do. Currently this little discussion is a great example to any visiting Wikipedian about how minor errors ought to be handled by those who err and those who are confronted with errant beliefs. :) Srnec (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles the Bald
It's from de:, and though they don't have footnoted it, it's obviously "Reinhard Lebe: War Karl der Kahle wirklich kahl? Historische Beinamen – und was dahintersteckt. dtv 2003, ISBN 3-42330-876-1." (roughly "Was Charles the Bald really bald? Historical epithets and the story behind them"). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland
Having read over [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.-- Domer48 'fenian'  19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Stefan Uros IV Dusan of Serbia - infobox
I believe there should be an infobox in every article about a ruler, especially in an article about an important ruler, as Tsar Dusan was (at least in Serbian history). And I changed the image placement, so you can't claim that it's worse when there is an infobox. Ostalocutanje (talk)


 * The issue of monarch infoboxes in important articles is currently being discussed here at Talk:Charlemagne. I oppose them, even moreso when the ruler is important. Srnec (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I find them quite useful. They give you important informations in one place, without having to search for them all over the article. Nevertheless, I and the number of people do not oppose them, as I guess a nuber of people, as yourself, do oppose them. I think you should wait the end of the discussion. Ostalocutanje (talk)

Rodrigo Díaz de los Cameros
Regarding this 'grandmother' Froila, a countess: Froila is just a variant of Fruela, not an abbreviation of Fronilda. My guess is that it was an authorial/editorial slip. As to making note of her being a countess, I don't know that we should be going there. With the exception of a few foreign women who held French titles in their own right (e.g. the countess of Urgel), there was no such title in Castile - a countess was simply a woman who was or had been married to a count. If a point is to be made, it should be that RDdelosC was grandson of a count, Rodrigo Perez el Velloso. Otherwise, we are doing the equivalent of pointing out that Henry II of England was king, just as his grandmother Edith/Matilda had been Queen (while ignoring Henry I). Agricolae (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am aware that Froila = Fruela is a masculine (Gothic) name; I was just speculating on how it could possibly be derived from "Fronilde". But error sounds better now. I know nothing really about Rodrigo, except that he was a troubadour. I was just fixing a redlink when I created this article. I apparently researched him through GoogleBooks (among other things) and thought it worth including that he had 'comital' ancestors. I did not, for some reason, look at FMG, which would have cleared up the issue of Fronilde's significance. I read Barton, The Aristocracy in Twelfth-Century León and Castile, once, so I (thought I) was aware of the significance of a "count". I will tweak the entry based on FMG and you can see if the information left is worthy of inclusion. Srnec (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland
You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland. This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured review of First Crusade
I don't know anything much about the Crusades, but maybe you can save the First Crusade from being de-featured? Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou. I am (real-life) busy at the moment, but I have good access to Crusade scholarship. I should at least be able to replace some of the citation tags with citations. And maybe work on the layout, images, and that pathetic "In arts and literature". Srnec (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The 50 DYK Medal

 * Thanks! Srnec (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sempad letter
Heh, that Gallica link you gave me is actually a facing-page Latin/Old French text. The Latin version of the letter was on the previous page. It's not exactly the same as the manuscript image we have, but I still did more work than necessary, as usual! Adam Bishop (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I never even thought to look there, even after I looked up William of Nangis's works and realised that I was looking at an Old French translation of the letter. But just think of all the valuable practice you got out of it... Srnec (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ekkehard III
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ekkehard III, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05370a.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 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) 01:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Leo the Mathemetician
I nominated your Leo article, which I thought was quite good, for DYK. The proposed hook is: * ... that Byzantine philosopher Leo the Mathematician developed a system of beacons to give advanced warning of Arab raids and invented a levitating imperial throne? The hook has spawned some controversy/discussion over whether the levitating throne was fabled, mythical, etc. If you want to comment, it's at the DYK suggestions page. Cbl62 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like somebody's already cleared it up. Thanks. Srnec (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources?
How can you say Manuel de Sousa da Silva and Luíz Paulo Manuel de Menezes de Mello Vaz de São-Payo aren't reliable sources? Do you even know any Portuguese Genealogist or are you just saying they're not reliable? They're respected, as well as their work, and generally accepted as accurate. You don't even know them and you come here to destroy people's work!... What are you, a Historian at least, or an arrogant one who excludes other countries' views? He is based on Historical records and other investigators (which I could quote if I had the time and patience and if I knew which one corresponds to what exactly), you can't even dream of getting access to, you're not even Portuguese or Spanish!... Just because he is a Genealogist that doesn't make him less credible, since he solely bases himself (he's actually graduated in Sciences) on what is credible and can be seen on sources, and even I personally won't allow you to attack Genealogy with your prejudices against it as a Science! No one in their perfect mind will attack a reputed scientist who, among other works, discredited the claims of the Portuguese Columbus or perfectly corrected some of the interpretations of Freitas do Amaral's biography of Afonso I of Portugal. How can you say Oppas wasn't a Bishop of Seville if every Historian says he was, specially one of our foremost Historians, José Hermano Saraiva, author of some of our best History books? If you say something like that you're nothing but a vandal without any credentials who comes here and trashes everything! Who are you to delete other positions? If you keep attacking the idoniety of our best scholars they might end up proceeding against that. With all your arrogance you don't even mention the sources you claim to be more accurate!... Please don't vandalize my work and our History with your blatant ignorance of our investigators!... And making me loose my time, three times!... PS - Don in Oppas wasn't an anachronism, it was the common treatment given to Bishops since almost ever in the Iberian Peninsula. In fact, in all the History books I've actually read he is allways called Dom Opas!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have written some responses at various talk pages and in edit summaries, rather than engage in longwinded debate here. I urge you to follow this example. Srnec (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Hello, Srnec! I've started moving articles whose titles do not match the Naming conventions (names and titles). If a person was a grand duke, archduke, duke, marquess, count, or viscount, then the correct format is Name, Title of Place. If I moved Raymond VI of Toulouse to Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, you shouldn't revert my move just because titles of articles about other Counts of Toulouse are in wrong format. You should either move those articles yourself or ask me to do it. Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't take the naming conventions too seriously. They are not even conventions any more. They were made by a minority of Wikipedians in a past age when Wikipedia was a lot smaller, and they change slowly. They are not really helpful. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They should be followed as long as they exist. The naming conventions are supported by many and they are very helpful. I do not agree with all the conventions, but I respect them. 90% of the articles about people who held a substantive title follow NC(NT). Why keep those 10%? Name Numeral of Place is reserved for Kings and Emperors. Now we have Louis III, Count of Blois, Louis XII of France, and Raymond VI of Toulouse. It's confusing and people might think that Toulouse was a kingdom. That's what it's all about. If you object to the naming conventions, please go to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They should not be followed just because they exist. Wikipedia's only global policy is "ignore all rules", because it captures the spirit of Wikipedia: making a better encyclopaedia.
 * How do you know the naming conventions are supported by many? Not by me. And how many? Even if many support them, do these constitute a majority? I disagree that they are very helpful: they are a nuisance that gets in the way of common sense. I do not agree with many of the conventions and those that I do agree with are just common sense. I respect them only insofar as they help build a better encyclopaedia, and no further. I will break them, as I am allowed to do so.
 * I don't know where you got your percentages, but do you have any proof? I can think of a lot of emperors that don't follow that format and even some kings: Constantine VII and Leo I, King of Armenia come to mind. People might think Toulouse was a kingdom, but then they'd be corrected by the article. Or, they might just ask themselves why they supposed that "Name # of X" implied that X was a kingdom in the first place. It doesn't in normal English, unless your intoxicated by Wikipedia's conventions.
 * Finally, please remember that controversial moves ought to be reported for discussion at WP:RM, regardless of whether they need an admin or are in line with current conventions. Srnec (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you ever wondered why those rules exist? If all the articles followed Name of Place format, we would have nine articles called Henry Somerset of Beaufort (instead of Henry Somerset, Xth Duke of Beaufort). We would also have two articles under Ferdinand I of Austria: one about Ferdinand I, Archduke of Austria and the other one about Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a place for your POV. As long as the naming conventions exist, you shall respect them. I'll repeat once more: if you disagree with the naming conventions, go to the talk page. I do not agree with some of the rules, but I do not create inconsistency by following my POV instead of the rules. Surtsicna (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not tell me what I "shall" do. I am not supporting inconsistency, as you would know if you knew about my "voting" record in move proposal polls. You have created far more inconsistency with your rather random page moves (I had to move William V of Aquitaine just to regain consistency). I support common-sense titles. I never said that I thought all articles should follow a "Name of Place" format. And I have not wondered why the rules exist, because there are no "rules", just policies, conventions, and guidelines, many of which are just outdated and no longer represent consensus (or never did). Wikipedia has grown: "adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules". Have you ever wondered why nobody has thought to move some of the articles you're moving now since they were created years ago? Because everybody is happy with them where they are. If you have a controversial move, you should propose it at WP:RM. Srnec (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, nobody has opposed the moves except for you. This is obviously a pointless discussion. I'll save my nerves for more important issues. Best of luck! Surtsicna (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, somebody else (namely me) is opposing the moves now. If a person is generally known by a name which does not fit the guidelines it is unhelpful to list them under a lesser known name which does fit the guidelines. And the line "a rule exists, therefore it must be right" is worse than merely unhelpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Now you're putting words in my mouth. I know that every rule has an exception. I admit: moving Matilda of Tuscany to Matilda, Margravine of Tuscany is controversial, but I don't see much difference between William X of Aquitaine and William X, Duke of Aquitaine. The only difference between the two is that the second one is supported by the conventions. Perhaps I am too tied to them, but I like to have (for example) all dukes under the same title format, except for the exceptions (such as William Adelin). As I said, is there really such a major difference between William X of Aquitaine and William X, Duke of Aquitaine? Surtsicna (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not clear to me what words I am putting in Surtsicna's mouth. The only view I have attributed to Surtsicna is that if a a rule exists, then ipso facto it must be followed; on this question, here are some of Surtsicna's own words:
 * (1) "They should be followed as long as they exist."
 * (2) "As long as the naming conventions exist, you shall respect them. I'll repeat once more: if you disagree with the naming conventions, go to the talk page. I do not agree with some of the rules, but I do not create inconsistency by following my POV instead of the rules."
 * Maybe I have misunderstood, but both of those seem to me pretty uncompromising. Nevertheless, it is good to know that Surtsicna accepts the case for exceptions.
 * On another point, the expressions "POV" and "NPOV" have generally accepted meanings in Wikipedia. These meanings are defined in NPOV, but briefly the point is that where more than one opinion exists in regard to matter in an article, the article should not give undue emphasis to one of these views at the expense of others. It does not mean that one does not use one's own judgement in deciding how to format articles. Nevertheless, if one is to try to apply the sort of principles expressed in the NPOV policy to this case, one could do well to consider the following quotation from that policy:
 * 'None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth . . .".
 * Finally, reading Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles) I can find no support at all for the view that the "conventions" are fixed rules. They are clearly intended as general guidelines. They repeatedly indicate this. For example: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English . . ."; "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used . . .". Also, I read ". . . there is no Wikipedia convention that an article called Name of Place implies the subject is royal; Hildegard of Bingen is one example". Admittedly this does not refer to "Name Numeral of Place", but I do not see that the principle is any different, and I can find no authority at all for the statement "Name Numeral of Place is reserved for Kings and Emperors".
 * JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * @Surtsicna: If you "don't see much difference", why do you care to force your opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikWarmelink (talk • contribs) 22:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Guy of Ibelin
Srnec, hi, I saw that you went through and removed the dab notes from several of the Guy of Ibelin pages. Will you please reconsider? As I've been working through the Ibelin pages, I've been finding that they are extremely tangled. Children from one "Guy" were posted on the page of a different "Guy", and history books frequently refer to "Guy of Ibelin" without making it absolutely clear which one that they are referring to. Though by strict interpretation of MOSDAB rules, the dab notes aren't necessary, I do think that they are helpful in this particular case. --Elonka 19:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and revert me then; I understand: many references to a Guy of Ibelin in literature will not tell the reader when he died or even what office he held, leaving the reader guessing as to which Wikipedia entry to go to for further information. I will revert myself later, if I can't think of a better solution than the hatnotes (which I despise unless absolutely necessary). Srnec (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

can/van
I think "But virtue van never be fully attained" (on your user page) is a typo. That is, I am too stupid to see a reason for it, and "c" and "v" are close on keyboards. If it is a typo, please feel free to remove this remark (if it isn't a typo, definitely feel free to remove this remark). Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely a typo. Thanks. Srnec (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Best regards PHG (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland page moves & reversals
Hiya Srnec. I believe the air just came out of my party balloons. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that, but I think this move was extraprocedural and just not right. It should have gone through WP:RM like any other. There were many proposals at the taskforce, and not all of them are favourable to a move; and only one of them was "closed". Srnec (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the move was made by an administrator after a review of other move requests as well as the discussions and polls? Methinks procedure was followed...  You're not an administrator are you? --HighKing (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * An administrator is not required to move an article. I do not know if the admin reviewed the other move requests; he did not tell us. But I argued that procedure was not followed because there was no move request filed at all and no discussion at the talk page of the article moved. Srnec (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * An administrator is required to move an article over a re-direct at least in some cases. Having said that, an RM isn't required to move an article either. -- Evertype·✆ 19:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right; an RM is required when a move is controversial. This was one most definitely was. (And about admins: what cases are you thinking of?) Srnec (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The times when I try to move something and it tells me only an admin can do it. Usually when there's a redirect.

(outdent) The Republic of Ireland has been reverted to Ireland (state). However, the contrib history has been broken. What happen? GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's really annoying and inappropriate to revert that way. -- Evertype·✆ 20:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving Laibach
Hi Srnec,

I'm sorry I undid your undoing of my "objections" to your move, I wasn't familiar with the guides on that particular WP special page. No hard feelings, I hope? -- Soetermans |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  08:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure what you're referring to, so I can guarantee no hard feelings. Srnec (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough! -- Soetermans |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Moduin dyk
Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 05:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/PHG
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PHG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Saxon Brother War
Thanks for your comments so far on Saxon Brother War. I'm inclined to agree with you so far, however I've only been able to find that one source with Saxon Fratricidal War, do you perhaps know where we can look for more to get a better idea of which name to use? Thanks, and good luck on future edits. --Banime (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the page move, I'll continue to look into it as well. --Banime (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 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) 17:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Leaving
You aren't are you?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because I blanked my user page? No. I just cleared it because I was going to put something else up, then decided against it and saved the page while it was blank. Srnec (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heaps good.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Fontenay
Try to focus on adding more sources and refs to Fontenay to improve that article and less irrelevant dabs to other articles or dabs to non existent articles. No one is likely to confuse the very well-known victory by Saxe with the obscure Fontenay of 841.Tttom1 (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. I removed the redlink dab notice. Srnec (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop revert edit war over irrelevant dab.Tttom1 (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Reconquista and Crusade
Hey Srnec, last month you added a section about the Reconquista to the First Crusade article, and now there is a comment on the talk page that that info would be better off in the crusades article instead, with a shorter summary in the First Crusade one. I think it's a good point - ideally all the background stuff should be better-covered in the general crusades article (in the mythical future when I would have time to work on it). What do you think? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree about the organization problems, but I'm not sure how it would be best organized. Do you have any suggestions? I guess a random person on the internet might not want to read about the First Crusade in the same way, or same order, that someone like you or I would, and I wonder if I'm putting too much emphasis on historiography over the basics of what happened. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Orsini page was a bunch of redlinks and one link to an article. It was deleted because apparently a disambiguation page with only one working link is against the guidelines. (But what do they know anyway? I restored it.) As for the First Crusade, that talk page is probably a better place for the discussion, so I'll await your notes there. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Srnec (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: footnote
Hey Srnec, thanks for your message. I'm about to go out to finish up some work I have to have done by this afternoon; is it ok if I get back to this in a couple hours? Sorry about the delay, &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 16:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Srnec. Thanks for your advice! I decided to follow it (Evidence page). You can also easily contribute your opinions here. Cheers. PHG (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

removed comment
Hi, I see you removed your comment again. I just wanted to add that my criticism only scratched the surface of the problems. It's not about a specific topic or a source, but about how and in which context they are presented. Since you seem to participate in the still ongoing cleanup efforts, you are certainly aware that many things that look nice and interesting on the surface may in fact be very misleading. I could expand on several pages how that is also the case here in very fundamental ways. Fortunately, now I won't have to bore you with that... ;) --Latebird (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would like to hear, with one caveat. I did say that the information PHG presented could be worded in such a way as not to overstate its importance or misrepresent scholarly opinion in general (and thereby not commiting myself wholly to PHG's wording). So, is there anything innately misleading about PHG's information that cannot be corrected by rewording or some careful and accurate qualifiers? Srnec (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me just highlight one issue for now, a very fundamental one. To some degree i have to guess, because he only provides one small snippet of citation relating to "tatar" textiles. Now the medieval use of the word "tatar" is equivalent to our modern use of "oriental", and includes anything east of the bosporus. If the source doesn't say so explicitly (unlikely), then we can expect that the large majority of the imported textiles it talks about weren't Mongol at all, despite the fact that they may have originated in Mongol-ruled territories. In fact, the two paintings given as exmples definitively don't show Mongol designs. We would need an expert to determine whether they are instead Persian or from somewhere further down the silk road. (in contrast, there's at least one medieval painting on Commons showing a real Mongol Deel, but that's a very different topic.) His obsession with the Mongol Empire leads to an original synthesis, which in all likelyness isn't supported by the source. I'm quite sure that the book includes interesting information that could be used to improve many articles. But after what I have seen so far (and based on past experience), there is no reason to trust the given presentation. --Latebird (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that either (i) PHG is manipulating and misrepresenting his source, (ii) you are disputing the reliability of his source, or (iii) you are only disputing the relevance of one point in a footnote to the section as a whole. Which is it? Srnec (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on past experience, the information presented, and what I know about Mongolian history/culture from other sources, my educated guess is (i) (I'd have to see more of the book to prove it, of course). It seems to be a case of tunnel vision, cherry picking bits and pieces that superficially might support a pet theory, and just ignoring all evidence that speaks against it. --Latebird (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! I am delighted to inform you that the references are available for your own perusal on Google Books: p.16 p.17 p.18 p.35 p.37 p.39. You are welcome to suggest corrections to my text if you think some descriptions could be improved. I would also appreciate if you could correct some of your comments and posts in light of this material, although you don't have to :) Cheers PHG (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Google books hides the images. Do we have a copy of Fig 160 on Commons? --Latebird (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I know of at least three images from the book which are also on Commons (including Fig 160 which you are mentionning). Here they are. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of Source vs. proposed article text
I've now gone to the great length of comparing the source on google books and the proposed text almost sentence by sentence. The result is depressing.


 * Summary of the relevant pages in the source
 * p16
 * Mongols keep the silk road open.
 * The Mongols used a lot of silken luxury textiles made by other people within their empire.
 * Italian trade with the Black Sea region and Persia.


 * p17 - Nothing of relevance.


 * p18
 * Influx of influental "Tatar" texiles
 * Comment: The source puts quotes around "Tatar" to indicate that the term has no fixed definition (other than vaguely "oriental").
 * Mongol figures, costumes (see Fig. 160) and script (see Figs. 43. 49.) in paintings.
 * Comment: This Fig. 160 painting is interesting, because it shows Mongol personnel, with Mongol hats, but not with Mongol clothes. It is trivial (and far from constituting "cultural influence") that a painter would try to show people in their native dress, or what he believed to be their native dress. In this case, it is obvious that he had seen the hats, but either he had no idea that the traditional Mongol dress is the deel, and/or the Mongols he had seen actually wore clothes in Persian style.
 * If I may add a comment, to me the two people just left and right of the central figure, the one with the headband and the one with the big hat, actually do look as if they are wearing a deel. The buttons at the right shoulder are missing, but apart from that, the cloth looks quite similar to a modern deel. Yaan (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, more so with the one at left, who really shouldn't because he isn't presented as a Mongol... But then, it is only the upper part that reminds of a deel. Other than with a deel, I get the impression that the upper and lower parts of their garments are seperate (similar to some of the others shown), and they are not wearing the characteristic belt. I'm sure there have been other clothing styles with asymmetric tops. --Latebird (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends how you look at it? My impression is that the left guy is wearing only one piece, and with a belt! And although there have been other such garments (also shorter Mongolian ones), surely he is not wearing a qipao? Yaan (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Such speculation leads nowhere, and would require expert input. For the purpose here it suffices to understand that there are similar elements, but no conclusive identity to a deel. --Latebird (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Trade with Persia, diplomacy with Persia, "Orientals" brought from Persia, Persia here, Persia there, etc. etc.
 * Contemporary chroniclers recorded... Guiscardo de' Bastari... and one hundred companions, all in Mongol dress, at the Jubilee of 1300 in Rome
 * Comment: The source doesn't confirm that what the contemporary chroniclers considered to be "Mongol dress" actually was so. It also doesn't mention that anything else was influenced by the event.
 * A very clear distinction between the Mongol rulers and the peoples of their empire (of which, of course, the vast majority weren't Mongols).


 * p35
 * Development of textile design in Italy, inspired by Chinese, Asian, and Persian textiles.
 * Mongols living in China and Persia started to wear clothes of local design, employing local craftspeople, some of which were even sent to Mongolia.
 * Small patterns on white ground in Fig 23 based on "Tatar cloths" present in Naples
 * Comment: Other than implied by the caption used in the gallery above, the source does not say those are "Mongol-style textiles", and they clearly aren't.


 * p37/38
 * Example paintings showing Textiles with islamic flower and arabic script designs, as well as Chinese bird and lotos flower designs.

The source primarily talks about trade with Persia, and a little bit with India and China. Textiles from those areas have indeed influenced paintings on entirely unrelated topics (= cultural influence). Actual Mongol garments in paintings are the exception, and always worn by Mongols to illustrate their native dress, but not influencing other topics. In other words, the entire topic of "Mongol textiles in Renaissance art" is almost completely a fabrication, synthesizing "Mongol" where various other origins are really indicated in the source. The proposed article text incorrectly assumes that any product imported from Mongol-ruled territories must have been a Mongol product, which as best can be qualified as wishful thinking. --Latebird (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusion

Response by PHG
Hi Latebird. I am afraid you are somewhat mischaracterizing Mack's writing. As I said, I am open to modifications of the proposed paragraph, if you think there may be inexactitudes, but in light of what Mack writes, I am afraid you are unduly denying the role of the Mongols in the development and spread of Tatar cloths. Precisions hereafter. Cheers PHG (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are saying that "This Fig. 160 painting is interesting, because it shows Mongol personnel, with Mongol hats, but not with Mongol clothes.", but actually Mack references the very same painting for Mongol figures and clothing on page 18: "... left its mark on fourteenth century Italian Art in Mongol figures, costumes (see, Fig. 160)..."
 * The role of the Mongols in the development and diffusion of Tatar cloths is clearly described in p.35:


 * You are saying that "Other than implied by the caption used in the gallery above, the source does not say those are "Mongol-style textiles", and they clearly aren't.". Actually, after a description of the development and spread of the Tatar cloth under Mongol rule (quote above), Mack continues directly with the following paragraph, and Gabriel Annonciation is given as an example of these types of cloths:


 * Your characterization that Tatar would only mean "Oriental" is also not quite fair I am afraid. Historically, the Tatars are closely associated with the Mongols, and the word was routinely used to describe the Mongols themselves (see Wikipedia for Tatar "As various of these nomadic groups became part of Genghis Khan's army in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the invaders of Rus and Hungary became known to Europeans as Tatars (or Tartars). After the break up of the Mongol Empire, the Tatars became especially identified with the western part of the empire, which included most of European Russia and was known as the Golden Horde."). Also Mack clearly differentiates Tatar from Oriental and Islamic in her work. An example:
 * Throughout her book, Mack clearly attributes the advent of the Tatar cloths to Europe to the Il-Khanate, which is, as everyone knows, the Mongol realm of Persia.

PHG (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If Mack really believes that Fig. 160 shows Mongol "costumes" (the text leaves this open to some degree, only really describing the hats), then he happens to be mistaken in this point. There must be hundreds if not thousands of sources available describing traditional Mongol dresses, and the ones shown in that painting very obviously don't match (I explained the possible reasons above). Relying on a single source for such details (and reading too much into the single word "costumes" here) is never a good idea.
 * Why did you copy half of p.35 over here? The Mongols were instrumental in distributing textiles from non-Mongol cultures, and they apparently brought Chinese and Persian artisans to work together. But nowhere does the source say that the result of that were "Mongol textiles" in any way.
 * It is correct that one of at least a dozen different historical meanings of the word "Tatar" signifies a specific tribe related to the early history of the Mongol Empire (Tatars killed Gehghis' father). But to cherry pick that rather uncommon meaning and to assume that this is the definition used by Mack is ridiculous. In reality, Mack uses the definition that was common in medieval Europe, which is exactly equivalent to our modern "Oriental".
 * While the Ilkhanate was ruled by a small aristocracy of Mongol origin, by culture it was predominantly Persian. You are still trying to push the absurd "Tatar = Mongol" equation, and the equally absurd idea that "under Mongol rule" automatically means "Mongol".
 * As long as you are unable to put the information found in a source into the correct context, continuing this discussion is pointless. --Latebird (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Latebird! Overall, it would seem that your main objection revolves around the association of "Tatar cloth" with the Mongols. I re-read Rosamond E. Mack (Mack is a she, please), and I am quite positive that she attributes "Tatar cloth" to Mongol specific demands for luxurious silks, and production systems organized by the Mongols. Of course, there is no denying that Persian and Chinese artisans had a key role in the development and production of these textiles under Mongol rule. Actually, I strongly agree with you that these textiles were not "Mongolian" in the sense that they would have originated from the specific culture of Mongolia, but rather were a result of the Mongol Empire, and as such the result of a wide cultural and artistic exchange under Mongol rule.
 * The central role of the Mongols is also highlighted by other authors: Commodity and Exchange in the Mongol Empire by Thomas T. Allsen (page 4) Google books:


 * Your claim that "Tartar" would only mean "Oriental" and not "Mongol" does not seem to make much sense when looking at the sources (whether Mack or Allsen): both strongly identify "Tatar cloths" with the Mongols. Historically also, contemporary Europeans actually used the expression "Panni Tartarici" to describe the textiles, and as far as I know "Tartar" was exactly how the Mongols were called in the West during the period.
 * If your issue is with the specific expression "Mongol textiles", I would be fine with changing it to "Mongol Empire textiles", or just "Tatar textiles", if it makes more sense to you, and I am totally ready to express more clearly the nuance that the Mongols were the patrons of the productions of panni Tartarici rather than the "authors" or "creators" of these productions, if you will. What do you think? Cheers. PHG (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Using a different word won't really change much (other than camouflaging your intentions). A rose is still a rose by any other name. The problem goes deeper, in that when reading those sources, you focus primarily on something that is only a side aspect of the information they want to provide. It is trivial that a force ruling most of the known world was instrumental in many things. It is less trivial to understand that the actual Mongols were an extremely small minority (less than 1%) within their own empire. Most of the people that you summarily qualify as "Mongols" (now trying to switch to the even less helpful "Tatars") belonged to a huge collection of different nationalities, ethnicities, and cultures. Once you start to take notice of those specifics, the information you find will be much more useful and interesting. --Latebird (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That the Mongols were a minority in their own Empire is irrelevant to the fact that they nonetheless were the ones who had the power, and thus controlled the administration, armies and economies of their realm. Textiles are but one example of this control: the Mongols organized the production, defined the taste and the development of the style, and were the actors who brought these textiles to the West. It is exactly in this sense that the expression "Tatar cloth" is being used by authors. I am afraid your argument tends to deny any Mongol characteristic to the Mongol Empire, which does not seem to make much sense: their demographics were sure small, but their power was close to absolute. This is why the Mongol Empire is called so, and not something like "Central-Asian confederation" or whatever. Cheers PHG (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Mongol rulers had certainly more important things to do than to micro-manage such mundane tasks as the design and manufacture of textiles in all parts of their empire. And that confederation concept actually hits the nail on its head quite accurately, no matter what name they happened to give it. --Latebird (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation
I came across this comment you made (on the talk page dealing with the border between, um, two places on the island of Britain: "That would be a problem of literacy which we should not try to solve." Even outside that specific context, it seems an attitude that ought to catch on.  --- OtherDave (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Agilulf's Italy.gif
File:Agilulf's Italy.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Agilulf&. 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) 09:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Page movement
Hi. Reposting this message to you as I know it will be of particular interest. Please contribute to Page movement and Wikipedia talk:Page movement. I have started this proposal as an attempt to formalize and/or get down in writing some of WP:RM custom and etiquette, as well as give an opportunity to institute some things, such as rubber staming the status of WP:RM as the device for resolution of conflict regarding page movement as well as instituting a WP:RM appeal process. It would also be good if we could consider centralizing discussions and/or formalizing the means of doing so, at least regarding mass moves proposals. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On this very subject, I see that a pile of Frankish and German families were moved last year from Xids/ings/ians/ines/iners to X dynasty. Bleh! I'm going to go through and move them all back, a bit at a time. By the way, I have Regine Le Jan's awfully good Famille et pouvoir dans le monde franc if that will ever be useful. All the best for 2009, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. I see the proposals at WP:RM. I have put them on my watchlist, just in case they turn out to be&mdash;somehow&mdash;controversial. Happy 2009. Srnec (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 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) 04:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisations in wine
Hello, I saw that you have changed (mainly removed) capitalisations of words in e.g. many wine-related articles. In many cases, I agree with you, but not in every instance. Proper names should be capitalised, which includes both grape varieties (Chardonnday, Steen...) and protected designations of origin (Champagne, Brandy de Jerez). For multi-part grape names, some write "botanical descriptors" with lowercase (Pinot noir) and only capitalise non-botanical terms (Cabernet Sauvignon), but some capitalise every word (Pinot Noir) - we have never agreed to a standard within WP:WINE. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Capitalisation (in other words, identifying proper nouns) in English can be a tricky issue (WikiProject Mammals knows this well). I see arguments for and against in most contentious cases (and a few are no-brainers). For now, if I do any more wine-related editing, I will try not to rock the boat. Thanks for the information. Srnec (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi Srnec. Thank you for inserting coin images into their relevant articles. Thank you also for your comment here. Best regards! PHG (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Capetians instead of Carolingians
Hi Srnec! Help! If you have time, could you kindly consider correcting a mistake in Template:Monarchs of France: the first two kings mentionned in the Carolingian box (Hugh (987–996)*Robert II (996–1031)) are actually Capetians. As far as I know they should be replaced by the early Carolingians Pépin (751-768) · Carloman I (768-771) · Charles I (768-814) · Louis I (814-840) · Thank you! PHG (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Artuqids
Hi Srnec! I have added a group of coins of the Artuqids here. Would you consider inserting them in the article if you have time? Best regards PHG (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Srnec. I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

King of the Franks/King of France
Actually, rex Francorum means "King of the Franks." The style eventually became roi de France under Louis IX, and as French was translated back into Latin sometime later, became rex Franciæ, King of France. Just because Suger chooses to ignore the Latin and instead call them "King of France" doesn't make it right. There is an inexorable link between medieval France and the Church, yes? Many kings based their right to rule on the consent (and coronation) of the Pope. Popes always used "rex Francorum" in coronation rites, even long past Louis IX. However, I think the fact that they called themselves roi de France, something they previously hadn't done, supersedes that. In any case, calling any French king before Louis IX is anachronistic. It would be the same as calling Henry VII "King of the United Kingdom." And my apologies - I didn't mean any offense by reverting without explanation - I thought this would suffice instead of typing the same thing repetitively. Cheers. Dpodoll68 (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ". . . the peculiar individuality of Francia occidentalis, particularly in its cultural aspects, soon became apparent, as is expressed in the alternative epithets that came to be applied to it: the terms Francia latina, gallica or romana alluded to the predominant language spoken, setting this territory in opposition to Germania. And although writers east of the Rhine and the chroniclers of Lombardy long continued to apply the unqualified name Francia to the eastern territory, in the chronicle of the Astronomer of Limoges, written in the late ninth century, a clear opposition is already drawn between France and Germania: populi Franciae et Germaniae. At the end of the tenth century, after the death in 911 of Louis the Child, the last Carolingian to reign in the east, his successors from time to time, when they were also the kings of Italy, continued to style themselves rex Francorum et Longobardorum, but most were simply reges who were customarily distinguished by the name of their native duchies: king of the Saxons, king of the Alamans, king of the Franconians. The region between the Rhine and the Elbe, the future Deutschland, abandoned the name Francia. As for Lothaire's erstwhile subjects, they had become 'Lorrains'. In the space of less than two centuries, the concept of Francia had become meaningful only in the west, in the country which had originally been allotted to Charles the Bald. By 987, when the Capetian dynasty definitively took over from the Carolingians, 'France' was already a meaningful concept in the minds and language of its inhabitants; the 'kingdom of France', as opposed to the Empire and the Christian principalities of Spain, already existed. To be sure, it took some time for the expression to be adopted in written texts generally. Some tenth-century texts already use the expression Regnum Franciae alongside Regnum Francorum, but the latter was long to remain the forumla used in official charters. It was not until the second half of the eleventh century that Philip I, in 1083, dated on of his proclamations to the 'reign of Philip in France (Philippo regnante in Francia)'. The expression Regnum Franciae was to be used by the chancellery from Philip Augustus' accession to the throne in 1205 onwards, but not until 1254 was rex Francorum officially changed to rex Franciae, although the expression had been known ever since 1196. Only very gradually did the kingdom become generally identified as Francia by scholarly historians. Hugues de Fleury certainly regarded Charles the Bald as the first rex Franciae, but in his Chronique universelle, written in about 1100, the term Francia is still used in teh restricte sense of the territory to the north of the Loire or the Seine, and the political framework envisaged is still Carolingian rather than Capetian. In the twelfth century, Francia was still rarely used to denote the kingdom as a whole, for which the expression Francia tota was preferred. However, in the vulgar tongue, already in the late tenth century, people must have spoken of 'the king of France' rather than 'the king of the Franks'." [From Xavier de Planhol and Paul Claval, translated by Janet Lloyd (1994), An Historical Geography of France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 32208 1 ), 95–6.]


 * They are usually called kings of France by historians. That settles it for us. I have no problem with presenting as much information on the styles, formal and informal, used by and of any monarch, during and after their reign, but in the lead of an article, the king of France should be described as such. We do not say that Louis IX was, by the grace of God, King of the Franks from 1226, we say that Louis IX was the King of France. This is not just the case with the kings of France, we do not translate (because the historians do not translate) rex Anglorum as "king of the Angli". I'm not sure what you're saying about the papacy. And calling Henry VII "King of the United Kingdom" is not at all a parallel case. The UK and England are vastly different entities. The regnum Franciae and the regnum Francorum are the exact same thing (at least, for the time period under discussion). Srnec (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: 1911 tagging
I saw your comment on the TfD. If it's really that big a problem for you guys, I'll let you make the decision about what gets tagged. -- Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankyou. The point is that some of the article you tagged did not need to be tagged. Mindlessly tagging them because of the presence of a template on their talk pages (that is up for deletion) seems unwise to me still. I do not know anything about AWB and I do not use it, but perhaps you could consider, if it makes mindless tasks easy enough, reversing the better part of your template additions? (A cursory look at a few articles, randomly selected, seems to confirm that most of them lost the 1911 tags long ago, and for good reason.) Srnec (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the way I see it, if the original article was based on one of the EB 1911 entries, even if it has been extensively updated and edited, it is still derivative of the original EB 1911 article, and therefore should be tagged as such (even though it is a public domain work) for the sake of proper attiribution. That, and the fact that having the tag on there doesn't really "hurt" the article, is why I put them on there.  Also, I was following the procedures I had used when deleting a bunch of the other talk page templates.  If your pal Wetman hadn't been such a jerk toward me earlier, I might have been a little more inclined to listen to him.


 * So again, I am not tagging any more articles, at least for now. If you or anyone else thinks the tags are inappropriate, go ahead and remove them. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/PHG
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is both revised and extended; the full list of new conditions are available by clicking this link. Furthermore, the original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history has been rescinded. PHG is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India&mdash;all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that PHG has complied with the Committee's restrictions over the past ten months, and that PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Erispoe
Thanks. Paul B (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 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) 05:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Greeings, I have noted that you have written a couple of articles about Bavaria, etc, and supplied the translated copy of Annales of Fulda. Do you by chance have access to the password for that site ? Hxseek (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It requires a paid subscription, or membership in an institution with a paid subscription. In fact, I'm not even aware that I (or my institution, rather) have access to it. The external link can probably be removed, but the only harm it does it tantalise. When I used the Annales Fuldenses in article writing it was a library copy that I used, though I believe the online translation is the same one (by Timothy Reuter). Srnec (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Conceptually I guess you were correct
At least about conception vs concept in History of evolutionary thought. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 1113–1115 Balearic Islands expedition
--Dravecky (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rationalism
Please contribute to the discussion at Articles for deletion/Rationalist movement. It's fallout from a 2006 discussion that you participated in. Uncle G (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)