User talk:Srnec/Archive, 24 February 2009–14 August 2009

Asturleonese linguistic group
A linguistic group needs links between the languages, and that links are linguistic ones and philollogy can explian that; so, a language group could be European languages, the languages I speak o so others. That's the reason why I think it's more accurate to define Asturleonese Group like a linguistic one. Please, let it like it's now.--Auslli (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to "let it like it's", because it's been protected from moving now. Your first language is apparently not English. That's fine. Your contributions are still wanted here. But please respect English terminology. A linguistic grouping of related languages is called a "language group" or "language family". This is what it is called. "Astur-Leonese language group" is perfectly clear and accurate English. The term "linguistic group" is never used (to my knowledge) in the way you are attempting. Srnec (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rani
I noticed you reinstalled the old version of the lead in Rani (Slavic tribe) for style reasons. This version however contained some false statements, such as "resisted Germanisation" and "one of the most powerful Slavic tribes", also it lacked important wikilinks. I again re-wrote, linked and referenced the lead and improved some other parts of the article, too. You might want to have a look if the English is better now. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have tried hard not to destroy any of your constructive additions. However, I think that in a medieval context Rugia is to be preferred over Rügen (in English the latter seems anachronistic). I also think that piped links should not be confusing to the reader. For that reason I don't want to pipe Pomerania during the Early Middle Ages twice and I'd prefer to say "conversion of the region" rather than "of the Rani" because it squares better with Pomerania, and the conversion of the Rani and their region (Rugia) are the same thing. I have altered the lead to read "the most powerful Slav tribes between the Elbe and the Oder during the eleventh and twelfth centuries", which I think is acceptable. I also think the history section backs up the assertion that they resisted Germanisation. It in turn is based on James Westfall Thompson, cited in the source section. The English was not a probelm, but the use of "remains" (dead people) for "remnant" (still living people) was a humorous error. By the way, I removed the See also section because all those links are provided in the article somewhere, but I won't object if you insist on restoring it. Srnec (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now combined both leads to a version I hope you agree with. I thereby corrected the following issues:
 * "one of the most powerful tribes": This statement is only true if you compare the Rani to the other small tribes regardless of larger tribal units they formed. If you compare the Rani to those larger units (Obodrites, Luticians, and Pomeranians, all of them are considered "tribes" though each comprised several small tribes), the Rani did not range among the most powerful - eg compared to the Obodrite state and the Lutician federation, they were pretty small and only reached religious importance when Rethra fell in 1068/69. Therefore I introduced a qualification to indicate the comparison is between the smallest tribal units (like eg Kessinians, Redarians, Polabians proper) and not the larger tribal units (like Obodrites and Luticians) these small tribes were a part of.
 * "between Elbe and Oder": replaced Oder with lower Vistula, which was the eastern extend of the small "fre" tribes until the 12th century
 * "resist Christianisation": There was no active resistance, as noone tried to baptize them before 1168. Former expeditions like the Wendish Crusade did not reach the Rani territory. I therefore left in place "one of the last tribes to cling to paganism" but removed the resistance part.
 * "resist Germanisation": Same here, no resistance as noone ever tried to Germanize them. Replaced with a short sentence about how Germanization took place in the 13th cty. Germanization was nothing someone intended and the Rani resisted, it was just the other way around: The Rani became Danish vassals and Christians, the Rani nobility then gained power (before, it was rather a theocracy and the Rani princes were nobodies compared to the priests), then the Rani nobles and the Danish monks who succeeded the pagan priests and thus became landowners of vast mostly undeveloped land tried to increase their power following a trend then present in all of central Europe, that was to call in settlers who would cultivate the wilderness, improve the low-developed rural areas, and found merchant towns. All of this was intended to (and actually resulted in) an increase of wealth and an increase of military strength of nobility and clergy, and Germanisation was a "random" effect of this - the call was not limited to Germans, but Germans were the ones who came in most abandunt numbers because of the demographic and feudal circumstances in medieval areas west of the Elbe. If there would have been not as many Germans but more Danes coming in, I would probably be a Dane now. You might want to look this up in more detail at the Ostsiedlung article.
 * "Danish until present-day": Only until 1325, then it became part of the Duchy of Pomerania, though of course some ties to Denmark remained.
 * "Rugia vs Rügen": Rugia is just one of the medieval names, another common one was eg Ruya, and I am not sure why you insist on Rugia to name the island. Maybe the principality is more commonly referred to as "P. of Rugia" in English, I don't know, but I don't think this is the case with the island. Rügen is not a modern name and did not emerge from a name change, but just by natural evolution of pronounciation and spelling. I don't really care that much though, but I introduced "Rügen" in the first line, because I think this is the term the reader will be more familiar with, and if someone is familiar with neither Rugia nor Rügen, I think "Rügen" is far more likely to turn out a satisfactory search result.
 * I hope I didn't miss anything, and that the current version is fine with you - if not, feel free to contact me. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Srnec. Is there a rule against having Infoboxes for early kings? Cheers PHG (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no rules at all. Or, rather, all rules may be ignored. Or, as I like to put it, the application of any given rule, policy, or guideline in a given instance must be appropriate to the article. Taking an example, the infobox recently removed (by me) from Childeric I contained two lines above an otherwise useful image and caption. These lines stated "Childeric I" and "King of the Franks". The first is extremely repetitious, since that is both the title of the article and the first words of the article (boldened). The second is misleading, since he did not rule all the Franks. He was a Frankish king, but ruled the Salii from Tournai. He had no formal title that we know of and he may be called with equal accuracy "King of the Salii" or "King of Tournai", but both are anachronisms as titles and better thought of as descriptions of his position (a fact the infobox cannot convey). The rest of the infobox lists the dates of his reign (also found in the lead), the name of his predecessor and successor (found in the body of the article and in a succession box, though this Merovech is probably legendary and the infobox doesn't tell you that), the name of his father (again, probably legendary), his birth and death dates (found in the lead), and his place of burial (though whether he was buried in that church or whether the church grew up near the site of his burial we don't know). I fail, in short, to see how that infobox added anything to the article. Rather, it seems to just duplicate and reduce information to data, losing context and nuance. Cheers. Keep up the good work. Srnec (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Srnec. I don't really mind, but my understanding of infoboxes is that they should summarize in a shorthand manner the most essential informations about a given monarch: dates of birth and death, regnal dates, titles, descendance etc... for ease of perusal. Actually, I don't think any new information should be in an infobox, quite the contrary: any information in the infobox should be explained, as you say, with the adequate nuance and detail within the article. I agree with your point though about the ambiguity of title and familly links in some cases, but this would concern the content of the infobox, not challenge the existence of the infobox itself. On my side, I'll take note and will try to have as unambiguous infoboxes as possible. Cheers PHG (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles by R. Collins

 * Articles
 * "Julian of Toledo and the Royal Succession in Late Seventh Century Spain", in P. H. Sawyer and I. N. Wood (edd.), Early Medieval Kingship (Leeds, 1977), pp. 30–49.
 * "Mérida and Toledo, 550–589", in E. James (ed.), Visigothic Spain: New Approaches (Oxford, 1980), pp. 189–219.
 * "Charles the Bald and Wifred the Hairy", in M. T. Gibson and J. Nelsno (edd.) Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom (Oxford, 1981), pp. 169–189; corrected and revised reprint published by Variorum in 1990.
 * "Poetry in Ninth Century Spain", in F. Cairns (ed.), Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar, vol. IV (1983), pp. 181–193.
 * "Theodebert I: Rex Magnus Francorum", in P. Wormald, D. Bullough, and R. Collins (edd.), Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford and New York, 1983), pp. 7–33.
 * (with Gordon Campbell) "Milton's Al-Mansur", Milton Quarterly, vol. 17 (1983), pp. 81–84.
 * "The Basques in Aquitaine and Navarre", in J. Gillingham and J. C. Holt (edd.), War and Government in the Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of J. O. Prestwich (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 3–17.
 * "Sicut Lex Gothorum continet: Law and Charters in Ninth and Tenth Century León and Catalonia", English Historical Review, vol. 100 (1985), pp. 489–512.
 * "Visigothic Law and Regional Custom in Disputes in Early Medieval Spain", in W. Davies and P. Fouracre (edd.), Early Medieval Dispute Settlement (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 85–104; also Section I of the "Conclusion", pp. 207–14.
 * "The Autobiographical Works of Valerius of Bierzo: their Structure and Purpose", in A. González Blanco (ed.), Los Visigodos: Historia y Civilización (Murcia, 1987), pp. 425–442.
 * "The Vaccaei, the Vaceti, and the Rise of Vasconia", in Studia Historica (Historia Antigua), vol. VI: memorial volume for D. Marcelo Vigil (Salamanca, 1988), pp. 211–23.
 * "Doubts and Certainties on the Churches of Early Medieval Spain", in D. W. Lomax and D. Mackenzie (edd.), God and Man in Medieval Spain: Studies in Honour of J. R. L. Highfield (Warminster, 1989), pp. 1–18.
 * "Pippin the First and the Kingdom of Aquitaine", in R. Collins and P. Godman (edd.), Charlemagne's Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious, (Oxford, 1990), pp. 363–389.
 * "The Ethnogenesis of the Basques", in H. Wolfram and W. Pohl (edd.), Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern, vol. I (Vienna, 1990), pp. 35–44.
 * "Literacy and the Laity in Early Medieval Spain", in R. McKitterick (ed.), The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge,1990), pp. 109–133.
 * "El cristianismo y los habitantes de las montañas en época romana", in Cristianismo y aculturación en tiempos del imperio romano, Antigüedad y Cristianismo, vol. VII, ed. A. González Blanco and J. M. Blázquez Martínez (Murcia, 1990), pp. 551–58. An English version, "Christianity and the Basques" was published in Law, Culture and Regionalism.
 * "¿Donde estaban los arianos en el año 589?", in El Concilio III de Toledo: XIV Centenario (589–1989), (Toledo, 1991), pp. 211–23. An English version, "King Leovigild and the Conversion of the Visigoths" was published in Law, Culture and Regionalism.
 * "Julian of Toledo and the Education of Kings", in Law, Culture and Regionalism in Early Medieval Spain, 22ff.
 * "Queens Dowager and Queens Regent in Tenth-century León and Navarre", in Medieval Queenship, ed. J. C. Parsons (New York, 1993), pp. 79–92.
 * "The Christian Kingdoms and the Basques, 718–910", in The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. II, ed. R. McKitterick, (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 272–89.
 * "The Spanish Kingdoms, 910–1035", in The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. III, ed. T. Reuter (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 670–91.
 * "The Western Kingdoms, 425–600", in The Cambridge Ancient History vol. XIV: Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors A.D. 425–600, ed. A. Cameron, M. Whitby, B. Ward-Perkins (Cambridge, 2001), 112–34.
 * "Deception and Misprepresentation in Eighth Century Frankish Historiography: Two Case Studies", in Karl Martel in seiner Zeit, Beihefte der Francia 37, ed. J. Jarnut, U. Nonn and M. Richter (Sigmaringen, 1994), pp.227–47.
 * "Isidore, Maximus and the Historia Gothorum", in A. Scharer and G. Scheibelreiter (edd.), Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter (Vienna, 1994),345–58.
 * "Les Basques dans l'histoire. Récurrences et fractures", in Denis Laborde (ed.), La question Basque (Paris: Editions L'Harmattan, 1999), pp.79–102.
 * "State of Research: The Carolingians and the Ottonians in an Anglophone world", Journal of Medieval History, vol. 22 (1996), pp. 97–114.
 * "The Reviser Revisited: Another Look at the Alternative Version of the Annales Regni Francorum", in A. C. Murray (ed.), After Rome's Fall: Narrators and Sources of Early Medieval History (University of Toronto Press, 1998), pp. 191–211.
 * "Law and Ethnic Identity in the Western Kingdoms in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries", in Alfred P. Smyth (ed.), Medieval Europeans (London, 1998), pp.1–23.
 * "Charlemagne and his Critics, 814-829", in Régine Le Jan (ed.), La royauté et les élites dans l'Europe carolingienne (Lille,1998), pp.193–211.
 * "Visigothic Spain", in Spain: A History, edited by Raymond Carr (Oxford, 2000), pp.39–62.
 * "The Basques: a Case Study", in Tim Unwin (ed.), A European Geography (London, 1998), pp. 89–91.
 * "The Frankish Past and the Carolingian Present in the Age of Charlemagne", in Peter Godman, Jörg Jarnut and Peter Johanek (ed.), Am Vorabend der Kaiserkrönung (Berlin, 2002), pp.301–322.
 * "The Lorsch Annals and Charlemagne's imperial coronation", in J. Story (ed.), Charlemagne: Empire and Society (Manchester, 2005), pp. 52–70.
 * "Continuity and loss in Medieval Spanish Culture: the evidence of MS Silos Archivo Monástico 4", in Medieval Spain: Culture, Conflict and Coexistence (Studies in Honour of Angus McKay), edited by Roger Collins and Tony Goodman (London, 2002), pp.1–22.
 * "Angus MacKay and the History of Later Medieval Spain", ibid., pp. vii–xvi.
 * "Commentaria historica ad Consularia Caesaraugustana et ad Iohannis Biclarensis Chronicon", in C. Cardelle de Hartmann (ed.), Victoris Tunnunensis Chronicon cum reliquiis ex Consularibus Caesaraugustanis et Iohannis Biclarensis Chronicon, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. CLXXIIIA (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), pp. 94–148.
 * "Pippin III as Mayor of the Palace: the Evidence", in Matthias Becher and Jörg Jarnut (edd.), Der Dynastiewechsel von 751: Vorgeschichte, Legitimationsstrategien und Erinnerung (Münster, 2004), pp.75–91.

For myself. Srnec (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 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) 23:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Order of Saint James of Altopascio
In the section on the translation of the rules chapters 67–70 and 72. I found this sentence in the last paragraph of the section. "If they have the presumption to attempt tnis on a charge of forty days' penance, they shall not be heard." Is the word in bold a typo, or is it in a language I don't know? I did know what to tag it with and I didn't know what to change it to. I figured you had the sources to fix the problem (if there is one) or explain it to me for my own education. Cheers.--Adam in MO Talk 15:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ramiro Garcés, Lord of Calahorra
--Dravecky (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

World vs Europe
Srnec, I post this in connection with the Slavic World/Europe article. Let's discuss issues we don't see eye to eye about to find the best solution. I believe, Slavic World sounds more consistent because Russia is definitely a predominantly Slavic nation and it is found both in Europe and in Asia.

Please give your reasons. Thank you.

Denghu (talk)

Nominations 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 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Granada War
Just so you know, I responded to your comment on Talk:Granada War. If you know something more about the subject, I'd certainly be interested - the article as it stands is woefully incomplete, and I don't claim any authority on the topic myself aside from what I gleaned from the es.wikipedia article. SnowFire (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 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) 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Elvira of Toro move
Hello Srnec. Are you sure this move is a good idea? I saw it listed at WP:RM. While the current name is longer, it is also more informative, and it gives her a more impressive sounding title. It tells the reader she was a princess during the time that León was a separate kingdom. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. It is not the job of the title of an article in an encyclopedia to describe but to name. 2. It should inform the reader unambiguously what the topic of the article is. Elvira of Toro does just that. A reader unfamiliar with who she is should have to read the article to learn she was a Leonese infanta (that's what it's there for). 3. "Infanta of León" only sounds impressive if you know what an infanta is and what León was. 4. It is not he job of a title to impress readers about its namesake. 5. For the same reasons we don't use García of Galicia and Portugal, Infante of León and Castile. 6. Why infanta of León and not of Castile or of Galicia? These are my reasons. Srnec (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On a separate issue (as long as I am here) I removed her marriage. I strongly suspect it is apocryphal.  If you know better, please restore it. Agricolae (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cnut
Hey Srnec, you went from support to ambiguous. You asked a few questions, and they were "answered". Where do you stand now? Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming Garcías, Beni Alfons
Garcia II is actually not uncommon in encyclopedic sources (the Britannica, for example). While only instructive, a Google search for "Garcia II" and Galicia returns numerous relevant matches. I have always thought of him as such, but my background is perhaps not representative of the typical English-language view. It has always been somewhat arbitrary, exacerbated by the discovery of reigns not known at the time the system was establised (e.g. Sancho Ordonez; Alfonso Fruelaz). I would have no problem with Garcia I of Leon and Garcia II of Galicia. Agricolae (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Moors#Seensawsee's edits
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC) The Ogre (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 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) 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

duchy of Alvito
Ciao! Can I ask your help for copyedit on this new article? Thanks and good work! --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Great article. I tried, but I have some comments/questions. First, Rostaino Cantelmo was active in the 14th not 5th century, correct? You linked Giacomo V, but not the other Cantelmi. I've added links for them, but if you don't think these are likely to turn blue any time soon (or ever), we can remove them. You said, "he lost his lands repeatedly": I assume he re-acquired them repeatedly in the same time period, correct? How could Piergiampaolo "renounce Alvito itself" after its title had been given to his brother, or is there an error? I assumed Piergiampaolo returned with Charles VIII's army, but if he came later, please correct it. I have rendered "returning in 1504" as "to which he finally returned in 1504", but I am assuming it refers to Gioffre, not Fabrizio. I also added two images, because neither of the ones of the ducal palazzo is all that great, and the one of Isabel is quite nice. Also, what are your sources? Srnec (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mhmh... I think I fell into a false friend... "renounce" meant that he had to abandon hopes on it. Yes, returning refers to Gioffre. Thanks so much for the good work. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CIao... maybe you can also help with Duchy of Sora, which I expanded finally? Thanks so much as usual and have fun. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 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) 04:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Pelagius of Asturias
Hi,

You removed the infobox royalty of the page arguing royalty. Why? Don't like infoboxes, did I take the wrong one? I was thinking of adding one of these to all the kings of asturias to get wikilinks implicitely describing and the transition to the Kingdom of Leon.



I am not an addict of infoboxesas such but it makes easier:
 * to bring valuable information from the Spanish wikipedia to the English one.
 * to identify important missing articles

Thanks for your insight, Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No infoboxes on early medieval kings seems right to me. See what I've done to List of Asturian monarchs. And I think I'll make a navigational template for the medieval Spanish kingdoms. Srnec (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your point but please don't flag it as vandalism. It is not. The article will eventually get one as the Charlemagne article got one. I wish we could make them collapsible or horizontal like Navboxes to put them at the end of the article. Contrary to lists, it adds machine-readable structured content that eases article management and cross-wiki interaction. It is a pity we could make them more discrete though.
 * Spanish medieval kingdoms deserve a navbox. I have been cleaning up Spain in the Middle Ages as a start. How would you classify them (besides Christian and Islamic kingdoms). Just a listing of them? Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Edward
You're not really supposed to list RMs you oppose. Can you remove it? I moved it because it is more accurate. I don't care if a head-count of randomers choose to ignore issues of accuracy, so would rather leave it that engage in such proceedings. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright. Removed. To be clear, I don't see an issue of accuracy here. Srnec (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Bruce is not an accurate version of the name, because the name was an agnatic locative appellation (which is like a surname, but it's not a surname). It's also one of consistency, since most of the other Bruces as called "de Brus". As an extra, it has a silent "e", which is one of my dislikes, mainly because it confuses non-English speakers, esp. so when the holder is a Scoto-Norman rather than obviously an English speaker. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

El Cid
Will you stop trying to hijack the discussion on this?

We should not be changing anything until there’s an agreement. Swanny18 (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by hijack? What have I done to "hijack" the discussion?
 * I disagree that we should not be changing anything until there's an agreement, since there was never an agreement for the status quo: it represents one editor's decision, passively accepted by other editors who don't have time to fix everything.
 * I have not reinstated my preferred lead image, but I would like to see you give an argument for the current image, instead of trying to force it on us by an appeal to the status quo. So what makes it the best of our options? Answer here or there, I don't care. Srnec (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The principle is that change should be by consensus. If there is a disagreement, we should keep what was there originally until it’s resolved, to stop edit warring (to do otherwise rewards aggression). And this image is the one that’s been there since the beginning (well, since Feb 2006 anyway)


 * There is absolutely no consensus at present on what to change to, and not a lot on whether a change is even necessary. When there is an agreement, if it isn’t my preference, I’ll learn to live with it. But we haven't got there yet.


 * As to what my preferences are, I’ve put them on the talk page. Swanny18 (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the editor who added the current image is not involved in this process, why not use the image I selected as the default, since I am actually here to defend that choice? Indeed, who knows if there was any other option back in February 2006? There is no consensus for the current image, but we have to keep it until consensus is generated for change? Does that really make sense? Srnec (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Northumbrians
I notice you’ve been working on pages about early Northumbrians; What did you have in mind? Are we going to be clashing on that, too? Swanny18 (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I created several of those pages (including Eadwulf III of Bamburgh and Earl of Northumbria) several years ago. Your merge suggestion drew my attention to them again. There was a lot of inconsistency in the nomenclature and it was all very confusing. I've tried to begin clearing it up. Feel free to take the reins at Earls, ealdormen and high-reeves of Bamburgh (which article title derives from the category that somebody else created; I know it could be better). Srnec (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was planning to make an article, List of ealdormen in Northumbria, that had the function of the article you just created, but broader (e.g. Muiredach (ealdorman) would go in it). The problem is that the historical writing on this area is very poor, and the popular account that Eadred divived the Northumbrian kingdom into two ealdormanries derived from two related 12th century Durham texts is contradicted by contemporary evidence. There is in one definitive instance 3 ealdormen at one time in Northumbria (994), and on another occasion there appear to be four, though it is also clear that the one at York is [supposed to be] supreme. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 08:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to change the article's direction. I realised that the nomenclature of our articles was inconsistent and that it was all very confusing for the uninitiated, so I thought I'd start to clean it up. I'm really not qualified for this stuff. I notice, however, that you removed Eadwulf (died 913) and Ealdred (died 930) from the list I compiled. I can't figure out why. According to their articles, one source says Eadwulf and Ealdred "ruled as reeve[s] of the town called Bamburgh" (which is why I used reeve and high-reeve). Ideally, perhaps, this article shouldn't be a list but rather a political history of Northumbria between the coming of the Danes and the Norman conquest, merged with Earl of Northumbria. Srnec (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They're not actually called "High-Reeves", though one is called actor, which may or may not be the same thing. At any rate, I was thinking of the page as a "Earl/Ealdorman" page, and technically it shouldn't have any of those until Northumbria is finally incorporated into England by Eadred. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 11:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Un posible interregno en la monarquía pamplonesa
Not seen the article, but some details from it are repeated with citation by Martinez Diez in his biography of Sancho el Mayor, which is available on limited preview at Google Books. Agricolae (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that the citation you used is incomplete - it is not from Príncipe de Viana, 8, but Príncipe de Viana, Anejo 8, a supplement and not the regular run of the journal (which is an important distinction, as a good bit of the run of the regular journal is available at DialNet). Agricolae (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note to self
C. S. Lewis delivered a series of two lectures to an audience of men of science at the Zoological Laboratory of Cambridge University on 17–18 July 1956. The notes for these were discovered after his death by his secretary, Walter Hooper, and first published under the title "Imagination and Thought in the Middle Ages" in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966 [2007]).

Puy d'Arras
Hi, you wrote this fine article on the Puy d'Arras, and I noticed a red link to Jean Bretel. Did you by any chance Jehan Bretel? (Or is that also an accepted spelling of his name? I haven't seen it elsewhere.) Rigadoun (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Jehan is just a medieval spelling of Jean. Srnec (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 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) 00:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

information boxes
Got a new one for you to post around ...


 * Your opinion on information boxes is not a bug, but a feature of infoboxes; strip away the flowery language and that is the benefit of infoboxes ... it lays bare the main points and brings forth the facts. A proper infobox adds context ... bringing forth points. When they do this, they inform the reader and do him or her a service.
 * Anyways, Historical periods (e.g. the Middle Ages) are events, but to a layperson I would say that they may not think of it that way (and that is what the general audience is, though they are not served in doing this if it's the goal to inform); ask a historian though ... Charlemagne's coronation does need an infobox because it was important; clumsy to put into prose the immense significance that this had on western civilization. But if an individual does not know history, an individual would not know that. J. D. Redding 05:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mary Jones (Bible)
It's true that moves don't need to be discussed if they are uncontroversial, but this one clearly is potentially controversial. A request was made for a move, and the debate ended without any consensus to move. Therefore any subsequent proposed move should go through the Requested Moves process. Deb (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ladislaus I of Hungary
Hey Srnec, thanks for dealing with Ladislaus about a month ago - I wasn't paying attention after Celebration1981 left. Also, did I ever mention how cool the Crusade song article is? I remember reading a chapter about them in the Oxford History of the Crusades, but it's an unfortunately neglected subject. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks and thanks. I think an article about Crusade literature would be an interesting one, but daunting to write (and do justice). About neglected subjects, Wikipedia certainly makes one aware just how much stuff there is out there that could be written about. I can never reduce the number of red links, it seems every article I create to remove one creates a few of its own. Srnec (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ocho Wikification
I have put my thoughts on the discussion page here. I will replace the wikification tag as I have not seen any constructive edits to suggest that this page has hope.keystoneridin! (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response there. Srnec (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I put my response here.keystoneridin! (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oveco (Bishop of Oviedo)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Oveco (Bishop of Oviedo), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I did this to respectfully inform you of the deletion nomination.keystoneridin! (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed this before; I've made a suggestion here. Swanny18 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

El Cid, again
FFS! how long are you planning to keep this up? Till one of us dies of old age?

If you want to make a proposal, fine, and if it's accepted, also fine.

But lurking in the wings until everyone has gone home, so you can change it to how you like, is not fine. What's it to be? Swanny18 (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

El Cid, yet again
I've put your proposals out for comment; if I've misrepresented your position, you've had 6 weeks to do it yourself. Swanny18 (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names
Do not ever refactor any of my edits again like you did on the above. BigDunc 12:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't ever put comments in a section where they are not allowed, like you did on the above. Srnec (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If an editor votes for just one option say F then that editor is giving a comment that they support only the status qou and the rest can go jump. The only way anything in the voting area is not a comment is if it is a private ballot with only an admin or whatever being allowed to see the votes as it is open to view then every vote cast is a comment so get over it. BigDunc  15:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But votes are expressly allowed in the voting area. All other comments—comments that do not express a vote—are prohibited. If you don't want your vote to count, why don't you just remove it? Srnec (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 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) 21:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Gerald the Fearless for DYK?
Hi. I've nominated Gerald the Fearless, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. PFHLai (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks, PFHLai (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)