User talk:Srnec/Archive, 9 January–20 July 2008

Your edit summary usage
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:  The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Ohmpandya  ( Talk )  23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive
Please create an archive. You page is 197 Kilobytes long!! See Help:Archiving a talk page on how to create one. Thanks Ohmpandya  ( Talk )  23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanders and the Proto Holy Roman Emperors
Srnec, I noticed Sanders moved (without any discussion I can see) a bunch of the pre-Holy Roman Empire neo-Roman emperors. I think this is ridiculously unnecessary, and I would normally just move them back, but am I gonna be the only one who objects to these new names? I don't wanna waste any more of my time on that kind of thing. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. Neo-Roman is not a term in usage. Though Holy Roman Emperor is a term projected back on Charlemagne's successors (but strictly to all prior to the Hohenstaufens), it is widely used in that way. Str1977 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing much wrong with it for the rulers after Otto I (though I'm not sure it's all that good a way of dabbing) ... but Lambert, Holy Roman Emperor is just odd. It was better at the established title Lambert of Spoleto. Yeah, I know that the title is just as projected back on Lambert as Otto, but it's rather odd to do it, as it's so rare and besides gives the impression that Lambert ruled the state we think of as the Holy Roman Empire] ...which he certainly didn't. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it gives the impression that he held the title "Holy Roman Emperor". "Lambert of the Holy Roman Empire" would indicate that he ruled the Holy Roman Empire. Michael Sanders 19:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And for that matter, it is a subject of significant debate as to who was the first to rule the "Holy Roman Empire". Certainly Otto I didn't in real terms. Michael Sanders 19:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Deacon's the only one calling them 'neo-Roman Emperors'. Historians commonly use 'Holy Roman Emperor' from Charlemagne onwards, it would be ridiculous to use different terminology. Michael Sanders 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that the articles be styled such. But your moves should be reverted if they are against community opinion. You're then free to use WP:RM. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody's complained so far, and it's been quite a while. Unlike that time in 2006 you moved all the Scottish Kings without consultation. Michael Sanders 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm complaining cause I just noticed. I dunno what Srnec thinks, but from looking over Carloman I I'd guess people just know you're gonna revert them anyways, so it's not really worth it. But Guy, Holy Roman Emperor? Come on?! Do you have any problems with the WP:RM process we should know about, btw? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In the case of Carloman I, it should have come back no consensus...what with the only two editors taking part failing to agree. I could, incidentally, say the same thing for the various Scottish kings you insist should be named in unheard of forms. (And you're a fine one to talk, really, since you were the one who made all those unrequested moves in August 2006, and then kicked up a fuss when everyone else bore down on you and told you no.) Michael Sanders 19:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not for you to decide, Sanders. Carloman was closed by a neutral admin ... you object, you don't revert him, you file a request for another RfM. And btw I was entitled to move those kings if I thought it uncontroversial (which I did), but not to move them in opposition to a RfM decision. I'm also entitled to argue for what I think is right as much as I like, and to make RfMs whether or not I anticpate opposition. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kings and Emperors
There were no doubt supporters of Bonnie Prince Charlie who thought he was legitimate monarch. And people who thought Charles II was legitimately King from 1649. However, we follow historians in dating Charles II's reign from 1660. That's the only way to do it - we should not be making our own judgements on the legitimacy of monarchs, but following the authority of historians who write consistently of there being, from 1254 at the latest, a "Great Interregnum of the Holy Roman Empire" lasting until the election of Rudolf of Habsburg. We're not here to rewrite history, only record what historians tell us. Michael Sanders 08:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also, "King of the Romans" should be used in the way I suggested (i.e. "formally King of the Romans"). It is often used, it would be unhelpful to not include it.Michael Sanders 08:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Srnec, your input on this situation is appreciated. You seem to have the same concerns about this "fake category" of titles in pretence. My main concern is the creation of fake successions (Conrad IV - Rudolf I vs. Willliam - Richard/Alfonso - Albert), especially the one jumping over decades. In English terms, it is as if the Empress Maud was succeeded by Charles II just because their claims were opposed at one point. Str1977 (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD
I agree, sort of, with the comments in favour of deletion at Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 8, but really the other guy is right: it should all be agreed in advance. So, no opinion from me. I'm thinking of writing something about Adelolf, Count of Boulogne, but all I know is that he went on an embassy to England and arranged the burial Edwin, son of Edward the Elder. fr:Adalolphe de Boulogne is the guy. I have an article half-written in my sandbox, but I'd like to have enough to make it worth while. Do you have any info on this man? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointers, much appreciated! On the subject of adminstuff, Rollback feature is now generally available to all editors. If you think it would be at all helpful, drop me a note and I'll turn it on for your account. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mayors of the palace has been superseded
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Mayors of the palace, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Mayors of the palace has been superseded by a similar category (typos in name, expanding abbreviations, fixing capitalisation, renaming to comply with the "by country" format and conversions from singular to plural or vice versa). (CSD C2). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Mayors of the palace, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Spectroscopy
Hi Srnec, I am rather surprised that a number of very bonafide scientific forms of spectroscopies were excised.

I think it may have something to do with the very narrow and outdated definition of the term spectroscopy in the article. In modern science pretty much any measurement done as function of either wavelength or frequency is called a spectrum and there is good reason for that: usually frequency is directly related to the change in energy the studied system undergoes. This is why there are mechanical spectroscopy where a response is measured as a function of the frequency with which a sample is deformed or dielectric spectroscopy where the same is done with an AC field. I hope the article can be brought closer to common scientific practice? Jcwf (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I have tried to improve on the definition part and added some things but it is still a bit of a mess Im afriad. Actually it is not surprising in a way, spectroscopy being such a hugely wide topic.
 * Cheers

Jcwf (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Help
Ciao! As usual I'm asking you if you can help on the Abd ar-Rahman III article that I've just expanded... maybe you can also add further infos from your precious sources. Ciao and good work!! --Attilios (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Hi Srnec, I'm trying to create a critical mass for this here Any suggestions Jcwf (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mongols
I don't care WHICH version we start from, if we can just get them both discussing the contents, and not each other. You have my support, if you need it voiced more clearly, please let me know. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Elonka based the smaller version on PHG's, it really shouldn't matter that much, and I agree it is easier to cut than to pad. I like the end result of the smaller version, it has less sourcing issues for me, but it's also important to get folks talking rather than reverting. Having read both pretty closely (at least in sections) it's clear that the smaller is based off the larger. I'm afraid at this point, both have too much tied up in "winning" though... that's going to be the issue. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since PHG has been doing massive editing already on the article, you might want to give him a heads up on his talk page so he sees your note. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Srnec, thanks for the message, but I'm afraid that I can no longer see PHG's efforts as being in good faith. Especially with his recent deception where he was putting "revert" in the edit summaries, while in actuality he was pumping more new biased information into the article. :/ Just over the last few days alone, he's added about 50K of biased information, which wasn't in the article when I tried to condense it in the first place! Though I have respect for your opinion, it is my feeling that we have already tried, for months now, to treat PHG with courtesy and good faith, and that he has not responded in kind. He has edit-warred, ignored AfDs, created multiple POV forks, inserted biased information into about 50 different articles, deliberately lied in edit summaries, and a long list of other things which add up to a picture of someone who is just not capable of working in a good faith and cooperative manner with other editors. Frankly, the only reason that I haven't taken this to ArbCom yet, is that I didn't want to have to waste even more time digging up all the diffs that would be necessary. It's my opinion that ArbCom is a "last resort" for complex cases, and I just don't see PHG's behavior as that complex: He's got his bias about a Mongol alliance and the Mongol conquering of Jerusalem, and he wants to get it into Wikipedia, no matter what the cost, no matter how many other editors disagree with him, and no matter what lies he needs to spout in order to confuse the issue. He's very damaging to Wikipedia, and I don't think we should spend any more time trying to appease him. We need to draw a line and say, "Abide by consensus, or please leave."

If we were to try what you are suggesting, meaning a revert to his (padded) 200K version and then discussion, here's what I think would happen: We'd pick a single section to discuss, and we'd suggest a rewrite, and PHG would oppose the rewrite, saying the information was referenced and shouldn't be removed. We'd try to persuade him, he'd oppose, we'd say we had consensus, he'd oppose, we'd try to change the article, he'd revert, we'd take it back to talk and confirm consensus, we'd try to change the article again, he'd revert again, and then around it would go. Eventually the good faith editors would get sick of the cycle and the bickering, and just leave. So the article would sit in its "disputed" state for awhile longer, per PHG's plan. I think that most editors would rather have peace than accuracy, so if no one's complaining at the talkpage, they're going to leave it alone, even though the article is still tagged as disputed, simply because no one would have the energy to keep fighting. So the article would stay in its disgraceful condition until someone else objected again, and then the cycle would repeat. But ultimately we'd still have the WP:OWN issue, where no change would "stick" to the article unless PHG personally approved it.

I've tried to break that cycle, by creating an independent rewrite in my userspace. I spent a long time painstakingly trying to build consensus for it, and then when I had consensus, I incorporated most of the rewrite into the main article. PHG of course reverted, and some of the editors who had gone along with the rewrite, rather than sticking around to confirm consensus, have again left in disgust. A few others though (WJBscribe, Shell Kinney, Aramgar, Kafka Liz) have been willing to try and enforce the consensus, but it's been a tough road, and I can tell that they're getting exhausted by PHG's tactics as well. I just don't think anyone else who really knows this subject is willing to spend the many hours that it would take to painstakingly discuss every paragraph of a 200K article, especially with PHG fighting a rearguard action every step of the way. So let's not go with PHG's version and "whittle," because I think that's going to be a nightmare. Instead, let's go with my rewrite, and let's build on it. It's easy enough to see PHG's old text in edit history, it's not like the information is gone forever (and I really don't think there's anything in there that has to be re-added, but I'm fine on discussing it). What I really think we need to do though, is to get a condensed stable form of the article, get the "disputed" tag off of it, and then bit by bit add anything that needs to be re-added. I think that that is our best option for peace, and accuracy. --Elonka 23:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (reply) Heh, have you ever been through an ArbCom case? I have, and though theoretically they're supposed to result in decisions by a group of wise and thoughtful Wikipedians, often they're just circuses that end up having no real effect. Even in the best cases, they're about as much fun as a root canal. They are Wiki-pain for all involved, especially because cases are open "debates" that bring in all kinds of thrill-seekers and conflict-junkies and nutcases who know nothing about the topic, but will want to sit around and throw peanuts and insults at all involved. It'll also probably take months.  As for what might result, the most extreme scenario might be that PHG would be banned completely from Wikipedia, but I doubt that'll happen.  He also might be banned from editing in the topic area of the Mongols, under threat of block, which he might or might not cooperate with, which would have us in roughly the same situation that we are now, where he's reverting and we're trying to find an admin that'll help us deal with him.  Or, we might end up going through months of ArbCom, with PHG and the peanut gallery throwing up mountains of smoke and chaos to confuse the arbs, and the final decision might end up being nothing but "Content dispute, work it out yourselves, go away." So, bottom line, ArbCom is an absolute last resort as far as I'm concerned.  I have no intention of filing a case unless I feel that I've tried every other possible option, and even then, I'm not entirely optimistic that it would do any good. --Elonka 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Greece
Dear Srnec, could you have a view on this and comment? Thanks, Str1977 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Constantine
I don't at all mind you disagreeing with me on this, but I would like to reassure you that I am a Presbyterian and have nothing at all against Christians of any other denomination. I don't think your comparison with Augustine is an appropriate one. In the UK there are two well-known saints of that name. There are not two well-known Constantines, there is only one (in my opinion, of course). Deb (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's interesting, because I didn't even know there was a film - and I might revise my opinion in the light of that. (Is it out in the UK yet, I wonder?)  But you're right, it's precisely because I've studied Classics that I have normally heard him referred to as just "Constantine".  I do not claim that "Constantine the Great" is rare, or even that it is not more common than "Constantine I".  But I would say that, whereas "Alexander the Great" is usually referred to as "Alexander the Great" by most people, I don't think that Constantine falls into the same category. Deb (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cilicia
Out of my field; I'm a Hellenist. I'll see what I can find out. Is Ruben Reuben, however? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 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) 01:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
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 February 14! Kirill 17:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Email
Could you please activate your e-mail function? Str1977 (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be activated now. Srnec (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 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 fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Aznar family
In the article Aznar Sánchez of Gascony, you claim that He was the founder of the Aznar family.

I have serious doubts about that claim, as AFAIk, only his brother Sans succeeded him. I have placed a "fact" tag on that claim but I would seriously suggest to remove it altogether, as I'm positive no relation can be determined between that early medieval count (who had no known descendants) and the modern Aznar families. Aznar was then just a first name. Only later would first names and patronymics like Sánchez or López become stable surnames.

Also, it seems that Aznar only ruled over a fraction of Vasconia (not yet Gascony), known as County of Vasconia (see Duke of Gascony - and talk if necessary), as the Ducal title was then in hands of other people, appointed by the Frankish monarchs (Seguin and later William or Guillaume).

Aditionally, it's worth noticing that the battle that Aznar and Eblus lost is actually the third Battle of Roncevaux (browse in that article for the references) and not the second. yet, as you put that as a quotation, I did not dare to alter it.

Regards, --Sugaar (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case you should surely clarify. "Aznar family"/-ies means to me modern people of that surname, at least on first sight. I haven't read that Lewis and, in any case I see no reason to describe one faction as "Aznars", specially as this count Aznar was apparently relative of the rulers at Pamplona (Inigo Arista) and Tudela (Banu Qasi) and possibly as well to the previous independent Duke Lop III Centulo - and that is the only historical reason for him to survive the battle of 824.
 * He and his brother, the only members of that dynasty that can be confirmed as relatives had the patronymic Sancion (Sanchez). It's also alleged that Sans III Mitarra was son of this one, so the Sancion/Sanchez family name would seem more logic.
 * Also it doesn't seem that Aznar himself defied the Carolingians. Only his brother Sans would. But anyhow, the important thing is that the meaning of "Aznar family" is clarified, please.
 * On a side note: why do you use Spanish names for Basque/Gascon rulers? Specially if your source is English. --Sugaar (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Darius
Nothing wrong with that. I should have checked the timing; but it didn't occur to me that it was so close. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re, Islamophilia
I replied to your message on Talk:Emirate of Sicily and please don't try to claim three people are aruging on your side when only me and you are still discussing. Remember Wikipedia is not a personal blog. The historic emirate already covers all the possible range of information on the topic and so I correctly redirected it as for the reasons I've just said to you on the article talk. Feel free to reply, however I feel that this has more to do with your and Jagged's personal Islamophilia than it does to southern Italy. - Gennarous (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What really is your problem? I've compromised and not just simply redirected your pointless double up article and yet you continue to insist on heavily loaded POV languages which portrays an anti-Neapolitan and Sicilian stance in it. If my suspcions of your Islamophilia is not correct then please tell me what is your problem to try and degrade the history of that? Even now, you are coming to me with things about other pages! like of the kings of Sicily and Naples. Really I'm starting to lose my patience. - Gennarous (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:HREmperors
I posted a note of this on WP:NC(NT), and I like I said there I wasn't sure how acceptable those names would be beyond the short term. I'm personally not too fussed where they end up ... wouldn't like them to be at Holy Roman Emperor ... but not too fussed. Some of those monarchs already followed the "of Italy" format, less demeaning to their imperial majesties than the likes of "Lambert II of Spoleto". Really, it's unlikely I will personally find any move correction you make objectionable, as you seem to share my wider historical concerns. So go for it as far as I'm concerned, but you'll know well enough it might be better to go through WP:NCNT first. All the best, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk • contribs) 07:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Kings of Cilicia
Moved the Hetoums to Hethum but you'll need to get an admin to move Hetoumids to Hethumids. —  AjaxSmack   07:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 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) 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bishops
Srnec, can you hold the horses with the bishop moves? :) Reason is no guidelines have been formulated for bishop naming, and these moves are dividing these names into two different de facto standards. If you could add your say at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28Western_clergy%29 that would be great though! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Bernard, Bishop of Gaeta, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

longissimam agnoscere veritatis viam
Hi Srnec, I believe I have an explaination for why the the letter of 22 November 1248 does not follow the usual nameing conventions. My suggestion is of course original research but seems fairly obvious to me (here). Aramgar (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Spain/Portugal
Hello. I just noticed this comment you left at another user's talk page and thought that I should drop by and say that Portugal was never a part of Spain. In the period of 1580–1640 the Portuguese kings happened to be the same kings as the Kingdom of Spain's, but the Kingdom of Portugal remained separate. Of course, it was then naturally ruled by the Spaniards, but still, not a part of Spain. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  21:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Lewis Weis
It seems has inserted Weis into a few hundred articles. Do you have the time and inclination to help remove them all? I got a few dozen but then I realized the enormity of the task, especially the farther back I go when it gets less easy to revert them... Adam Bishop (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusades task force
Hello again, I've created a Crusades task force as part of the Middle Ages WikiProject, so I thought you might be interested - I'm kind of bungling my way through getting it started, so any help would be great! Adam Bishop (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

re Protestant Reformation
lol... you added "and painlessly" in brackets to the sentence, "Wycliffe was posthumously burned as a heretic." Thanks for the chuckle. I read it 5 times and laughed each time. Maybe it's because I need sleep, but it's funny. Cheers, &#xE2E1;  Berg   Drop a Line ޗ pls  01:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you so much Srnec for your courageous support against my block. I truely appreciated your level-headedness, and your ability to see the truth in the middle of so many accusations I have been subjected to. I hope you're making some good progress on the Arab-Norman article :) Thanks again, and best regards. PHG (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Tags
Hi Srnec! Sorry to bother you, but if you don't mind could you kindly help me remove the tags at France-Japan relations (19th century), which have apparently been introduced to simply cast a shadow on the article without specific issues? If there are any specific requests to explain or reference certain points, I will gladly do so. Regards PHG (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (reply to Srnec) It is my belief that PHG wants the tags off, so that the article is more DYK-able. He's already submitted it as a self-nom for DYK.  However, I am opposed to this, because I have already seen PHG use DYK in the past to put biased information onto the Wikipedia mainpage (such as about the alliances).  The main problem with PHG's work, is that it often looks legitimate on first glance, but then when someone actually takes the time to doublecheck the sources that he's using, some major problems become apparent.  I've already spotted some problems with the FJR article, related to how PHG is portraying Christianity in Japan.  But to go into detail on each problem, requires an hour or more of my time to track down the sources and carefully document the concerns, and it's just exhausting, with PHG fighting a rearguard action every step of the way.  So rather than watchdogging every edit, I'd rather just tag the article, and wait some time to see how it develops. Also, it doesn't have to be me that checks the sources.  I'd be happy if anyone verifies the sources. If someone else who really knows this subject, comes along and says, "I've seen these sources, the article looks fine," then I have no trouble with the tags being removed. But just removing them on PHG's say-so?  Sorry, no, I do  not think that would be wise.  Bottom  line:  I am not acting here to antagonize PHG.  I am doing what I think is best to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. --Elonka 02:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I already opposed the DYK, yes.  As for the other problems, I noticed that in the first draft of the article, PHG had basically just copy/pasted a lot of information from the existing France-Japan relations article, and then added the "Context" section which was the borderline medieval info.  I was particularly struck by the lack of solid sources in that section, and then the link about the "persecution of Christians in Japan", which leads to Kirishitan, which, well, isn't really about the persecution of Christians in Japan.  As I dug deeper, it looked like this was tied in to the spread of Nestorian Christianity, which was already a focus of PHG's with the Franco-Mongol  alliance article.  And as I'm working through the "List of articles for review", there are several articles there related to Asian Christianity which are requiring cleanup.  Did you look at the duplication between Christianity in Asia and Roman Catholicism in Asia, both also created by PHG?  It was just enough question marks coming up, that I cannot assume in good faith that the article is "okay".  It may be necessary to request an extension of sanctions on PHG, to include other topic areas, but again, rather than take that step, I'd just like to take a "wait and see" attitude for awhile.  It would help a lot if PHG were able to acknowledge that other editors have good faith concerns about his editing, but so far, PHG has not once acknowledged any credibility to anyone's concerns.  He maintains that it's all  just a lot of misrepresentations and harassment.  And frankly, that does not fill me with confidence either.  If PHG could just say something like,  "Oops, I see I was getting a bit sloppy in my research, sorry, I'll try to do better," then I think we could try to give him some more leeway.  But instead he's still in a mode of "PHG against the world," and frankly, I just don't trust his ability to do good research.  But, as I said, I'm willing to "wait and see" on the current article.  If he finishes it and then I (or some other editor) checks the sources and finds out that it's ship-shape, I'll be much more inclined to give him more freedom in editing other articles.  But until then, I am looking at the new article, with just as much concern as all the other articles on the list. Does that help explain? --Elonka 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Planh -- bravo!
Nice to see a change to something in my watchlist that substantially changes an article for the better. Bravo! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou very much. I have been doing a lot of troubadour-related work lately. Srnec (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusades
A fair question. It was one of the last instances, but the last? The Battle of Vienna, with its multinational Holy League is now seen in many books as the "Final Crusade". Although it would be fair to say that Napoleon defeated the last Crusaders when he captured Malta on his way to Egypt. The knights of St John remained "on Crusade" until the last. The Armada invasion was treated as Crusade, now if it falls with in the scope of the project or not is another question. I strongly advocate against narrowing the focus to the "eight or nine or ten" numbered Crusades, or just until the end of the middle ages (1453? 1492? 1517?). We will see what others think and play by consensus. -- Secisek (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Laurent Dailliez
Hi Srnec! Let me indulge in your proposal to put comments on your Talk Page... In the article Mulay, the French historian Laurent Dailliez is being qualified as a "modern "popular history" and pseudohistory writer" (last lines of the article). As far as I know, these are quite unfair and disparaging qualifiers for this author. I don't think there is there any reference for calling him so. In the negative, I would suggest that we replace these qualifiers by a more neutral "The French historian Laurent Dailliez". It is true that some of the conclusions drawn by Dailliez can sometimes be challenged by some other historians, but disputing each other's theses is what historians do after all. Regards PHG (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, to keep things from getting totally tangled here, can we please keep article requests on an article's talkpage? Then, if they're ignored, PHG is of course free to ping one or two individual editors to followup, though I'd see more than that as being disruptive.  But if we start requests at usertalk, then we get odd edits like were  just made to Mulay, that say "per request of PHG", but it's not clear what the request was.  So, can we please keep these documented at the appropriate talkpages?  That said,  I don't have a big problem with the edit, though I'm not entirely understanding what "contrarian" means? --Elonka 23:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. That was my fault. I intended to put an explanation on the talk page with a link in the edit summary, but I forgot (between when I figured out what I was going to do and when I did it). PHG can post to the talk page or directly here and I will post on the talk page (this puts one editor between PHG and the other editors who have been involved in the dispute). I only seek to avoid any irritance for those editors like yourself who have been heavily involved. Srnec (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And per dictionary.com, contrarian means "a person who takes an opposing view, esp. one who rejects the majority opinion". I think this describes Dailliez's "muddying the waters" as described in the criticism section of his article. Srnec (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I am afraid Dailliez is first an historian before being a "contrarian"... Could we use an expression such as "The sometimes disputed historian Laurent Dailliez", or "The historian Laurent Dailliez, who is sometimes criticized for his views, ..." (with possible refs to the comments by Demurger for example). "Contrarian" is an expression I have never seen in respect to Dailliez, and it seems therefore quite OR. Thank you. PHG (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Contrarian" is not a profession; it is an adjective I'm applying to Dailliez, who is already described as a "modern writer". He is a historian, yes, but there is some worry that not everything he writes is written "as a historian writes" so to speak: up to academic standard. So just b/c Dailliez wrote it does not make it good history. Dailliez's article attests that he is a contrarian figure, i.e. "a person who [likes to muddy the waters], esp. one who rejects the majority opinion". I removed the major problem, which was ambiguous usage of "pseudohistory". I don't think Dailliez's credentials are at all attacked, but his position is really a fringe-y view found in a popular work (i.e. for the people) and so need not be treated as academic history. For all we know, Dailliez may have "changed his mind" (if it is true that he takes pleasure muddying the waters). In short, let's only call Dailliez a historian (an academic vocation) when he is writing academically. Srnec (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Srnec. Being an historian is indeed a profession, and I thought a historian is still a historian even if his views are minority or some of his interpretations disputed. Dailliez is actually an historian of rather high standing in France, who is read quite extensively (even when Demurger criticizes him on one or two points, he still says that Dailliez is "generally more serious"). My main issue was with putting unfair POV and OR pejorative qualifyers on him (I am glad the disparaging "pseudo-historian" was removed), but still, I would think that Dailliez deserves a more neutral and factual treatment ("Il doit se retourner dans sa tombe" as we say). As far as I know, he is never associated with the word "contrarian", but highly associated with the words "historien" or "historian" . Again, how about "The historian Laurent Dailliez, who is sometimes criticized for his views, ..."?. Best regards. PHG (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with "historian who is sometimes criticized for his views" is that that applies to every historian. What makes Dailliez's opinion on this issue unique? It is because it is a contrarian opinion, contrary to the majority. Dailliez is a link that can be clicked for those readers looking for more, but "contrarian modern writer" is accurate (and NPOV). "Historian" just adds authority to his voice, when the claim comes from a book which is not academic, and "academic" seems to be the (usual) Wikipedia standard for reliable sources. That said, I have added "historian" to the article in order to balance contrarian, since it is not inaccurate to say he is a historian and therefore hardly matters. Srnec (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Srnec, your edit is great! Thanks to you, we moved from an untue and derogatory statement about this author ("pseudohistory writer") to something which I think is much more fair. Could "marginal" be better than "contrarian"? Best regards. PHG (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Marginal" can mean unimportant. "Contrarian" has connotations of delighting in taking up a minority view, which is kinda what Demurger alleges. It is not a derogatroy or pejorative view. For example, I would say that André Arthur is a contrarian pundit and politician. (I'm Canadian.) I had no idea how unheard of the word was until I used it here! But dictionary.com and others back me up. Srnec (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. PHG (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusader campaings in the Levant (1299-1303)
Hi Srnec. The little-known events related to Crusader involvement with the Levant between 1299 to 1303 have been so much shortened and mangled in the current articles, that I wonder if we should not create an article named Crusader campaigns in the Levant (1299-1303) with all the details down to the Siege of Ruad, which could be linked from various articles such as the Crusades or the Franco-Mongol alliance. This is just a proposal, but I have a lot of material on this subject, and I was wondering if you would like to review it. Best regards. PHG (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on to your information (you can email it to me if you'd like), but for now I think it is best not to take such a bold step. This issue is still in cool-down mode. It would be best if interested editors could come back to look it over with fresh eyes (it needs fresh eyes), but the magnitude of disptues means that eyes will freshen only with a good helping of time. Minor edits for accuarcy and wording are fine, but large edits concerning scope and detail are best put on the back burner. You should raise this issue on the talk pages of perinent articles in the future, but a lot of editors (I believe) need a break from this and they will not look upon your requests/suggestions with gladness, but with groans. Best left alone for the time being. "Caution is the better part of valour." (Who said that?) Cheers. Srnec (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend case
Please note that I filed a request to amend my case at Requests for arbitration. Best regards PHG (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Srnec, I read your statement, but I have to admit some confusion. You think I want PHG banned because he's uncivil? Could you please clarify how you got this impression, because that's not my main focus at all.  I think PHG is normally extremely civil.  He does have lapses, and I'm a bit tired of the way he seems to personally target me, but the main reason I think he should be banned isn't anything to do with that.  My primary concern is his tendency to pour bad information and fringe theories into Wikipedia, and to put up great resistance when anyone else tries to change his work.  If PHG would simply improve his ability to critically review sources, and if he would graciously accept correction instead of arguing every word down into the ground, I'd have no trouble with him remaining as an editor. --Elonka 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope it's clarified. The ideas were connected in my head, but I did not mean to imply that you want PHG banned solely or even predominantly because of incivility. I agree that PHG needs to better accept criticism and learn a thing or two about reliable sourcing (hence my emphasis on OWN and RELIABLE), but I have yet to see the evidence (which isn't to say it doesn't exist) that he "pour[s] bad information and fringe theories into Wikipedia". Also, to say that your main focus is not his incivility, while true, ignores the fact that it was brought up enough at ArbCom to generate a "reprimand" and it has been brought up since at various talk pages as he re-invigorates old issues. And another thing, you must realise that he personally targets you because he feels personally targeted? I have tried to advise PHG to leave this whole topic area well alone for a while (~a year) until heads have utterly cooled. This won't work, however, if you follow him around tagging his articles, like the France-Japan one. Whatever the merits or value of that (I'm unsure either way yet), it demonstrates the need for a better and broader solution than the current ArbCom one. Frankly, I like your sourcing amendment, I'd even consider lessening the length of the ban if PHG were willing to comply with your amendation for the good of the project, since I think sourcing is the major issue here. Srnec (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tweaking your statement. And actually, if you look at my contribs, I think you'll see that I'm not following PHG around as much as he claims that I am.  If anything, I think Shell Kinney has really taken the lead on following up on PHG's additions.  And the recent AfD that was filed was done by Jehochman, not by me.  Based on how I see it (and Shell seems to back this up), PHG is just obsessed with me for some reason.  When he filed his recent ANI thread charging harassment, it followed a period of a few days when I hadn't done anything to him, but he reached for older diffs to make it look like I was doing something current.  He did the same thing over the Xmas holidays.  I'd left him alone for over a week, hadn't even been online for several days, but then as soon as I started posting again (just thank you notes from my RfA), on January 1st PHG filed another "harassment" complaint against me.  It honestly seems to me that each time I "let go" and try to go work on other things, PHG escalates his behavior to see if he can bait me back.  And then if I still ignore him, he escalates even further, such as with an ANI complaint to see if he can get me to react that way. It really seems to me that he just misses me.  :) --Elonka 23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia experience is so much less without your presence. :) Anyways, when I said "follow around" I confess to having only the France-Japan incident in mind. But I'm sure he feels like he can do nothing without it being heavily scrutinised (and not by sympathetic eyes), a major change from how things were for him before (operating in such obscure areas). Srnec (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, even before I came along, he was in a major dispute at Indo-Greek Kingdom. Except there, his "opponent" Devanampriya lost his temper, and it often ended up being a shouting match as PHG accused Devan of vandalism, and Devan responded with uncivil comments back.  But yes, PHG seemed to definitely prefer to work in solitude. He had a tendency to only want to work on articles that he himself created, and he seems resistant to making substantial additions to existing articles.  When he does add paragraphs to other articles, they are usually added because they're pointers to some other new article that he just created.  This often makes it more difficult for other knowledgeable editors to review his work, since they don't know about what he's doing, unless they actually check his contribs.  He does seem to really like feedback though, and is hungry for DYKs and FAs. I only got drawn into this because I spotted an odd addition to the Knights Templar article, and then followed the breadcrumbs back to Franco-Mongol alliance.  For another analogy, it's like he was working deep in the lonely and silent stacks of a major library.  Then I happened along and reached for the same book, and we ended up arm-wrestling.  I won, he got angry, I walked away, but he's deliberately making "messes" now, because a part of him enjoyed having company,  even if it was just "arguing" company.  ;)  Did you notice where he once commented that I made him feel like Michael Douglas fighting against Demi Moore? ;) I found that a very interesting comparison! --Elonka 03:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 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) 02:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Miro, Suevic king of Galicia, and Martin of Braga.png
A tag has been placed on Image:Miro, Suevic king of Galicia, and Martin of Braga.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Note
Do you have any opinions on this? --Elonka 02:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. Just one that I want to share, but many more I assure you that I will keep to myself... Srnec (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Shishnando.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Shishnando.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wermad
Can you please drop in references for the Wermad article you created? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Brunhilda.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Brunhilda.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Visio Karoli Magni
Yes, I was googling about, wondering who "Gaff" was. I am an open book to you I see! --Wetman (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Militia hook
I didn't actually promote that hook. I simply left a note to say I "thought there was a better hook in there somewhere" and then left a possible alt hook. Someone else decided they liked my alt hook better than the original, so perhaps you should have complained to them.

The problem that I saw with your hook is that the apparently exceptional nature of it which you describe just wasn't obvious enough. Stating that the knights wore a white tunic with a black coat is only likely to invite the response, what's so special about that? Now if you'd put the hook in the terms you just described on my talk page, I might have had a different response. Gatoclass (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I put "...that knights of the Militia of Jesus Christ wore the white tunic and black cowl of the Dominican Order?" Seems pretty close to what I put on your talk page. I suppose it is only opaque if you don't know that the Dominicans were friars, but if you don't know that, I suspect you don't know what a friar is to begin with. (I also suspect someone just automatically promotes alternative hooks unless there is an objection.) And since when it is it exceptional that a Christian military order was created to fight heresy? Anyways, no need to respond. I am being confrontational: it just makes no sense to me whatsoever, so I am writing mostly for my own sake. Srnec (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well no, I don't know much about friars, and I doubt most people would. That's just my point. As for it being exceptional that a military order would fight heresy - I think most people would expect a military order to fight wars.


 * Anyhow, I'm sorry you didn't like my hook, but Wiki is a collaborative project, and as I'm sure we both know, we don't always end up getting our way :) Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope that last comment didn't come across as smarmy. I just meant, basically, I understand your frustration, because I've been there myself on many occasions. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Militia of the Faith of Jesus Christ
Hi there. DYKship for the above article is still pending. An editor is requesting if it can still be expanded? Just want to let you know. Thanks... - DaughterofSun (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Odd...but thanks. Looks like its because you fixed my dashes. Savidan 06:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Friuli
Hi Srnec! Can I ask your help for correcting Friuli, which some wikijerk filled with an automatic translation which is making me go crazy? Ciao and good work! --Attilios (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

can't answer right now
I have this huge backlog right now, so I won't be able to review the sources you provided in at least two days, most probably three. I need to provide evidence on an arbitration case, which has a time limit, and answer other stuff, so I'll have to let other editors handle Crown of Aragon. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Ego
I suggest you take a Wikibreak Srnec, in the last week you have tried to say that your baseless opinion and histroy revisionism is above Pope's who were there at the time of the Lombards, and then you have, against consensus moved the article House of Aragon to an invented "House of Barcelona"; this despite even the official house website, agreeing with the consensus Enric Naval and myself have achieved. Not to mention your typical trolling on Robert Guiscard. You need to sort your behaviour out and stop edit warring against consenus. - Gennarous (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Until you begin to read talk pages, take arguments seriously, and cease to slander people with baseless religious and political allegations (e.g. atheism and leftism) you cannot be of any help to this project. You need to learn what true edit warring is, what a consensus is (there isn't one), and what trolling/stalking is before you starting tossing the terms around. And please do not acccuse me of revisionism one more time. I have not revised anything that a majority of historians have not revised much earlier and my track record with sources speaks for itself, especially when compared with yours. Srnec (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Charlemagne isn't of Germanic people?
Hi Srnec, I've read a number of your posts, and you seem to be a very informed and clear thinker. Do you think Charlemagne was not a Frank? And if he was, was he not therefore a Germanic person? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_the_Germanic_peoples Regards 24.17.6.63 (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. Charlemagne was definitely a Frank. He was arguably German or Germanic (and arguably not on both too, depends on who you're asking). Go back a hundred years and he's arguable French (haven't heard that one in a while though). Basically, I removed the category you added because Charlemagne is not a Germanic people. He is a Germanic person, i.e. a Germanic-speaking person, descended most probably from a people Tacitus called "Germans". (Is English your native language? If not, perhaps you are confused on the difference between persons and people?) Charlemagne is a part of the Matter of France. He is not a part of the Germanic peoples. He is a part of the Franks, I guess, though that sounds funny. He would be a part of any category labelled "Germanic-speaking persons", but he is not a Germanic people. That term is reserved for Germanic tribes or groups not individuals. I hope that helps. Srnec (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. It's interesting - the Franks are part of the Germanic People(s) ( see link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_the_Germanic_peoples ) and Charlemagne is part of the Franks, yet Charlemagne isn't part the "Germanic peoples" category -  a category that clearly, and rightfully, includes the Franks.


 * What am I missing? 24.17.6.63 (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just that the category "Germanic peoples" ought to include what? Germanic peoples, as in tribes, groups, clans, federations&mdash;not individuals who were in some sense "Germanic". It would be like including Tecumseh in a category named "Native American tribes" because he was a member of a Native American tribe. Charlemagne could arguably belong in "Franks" because he was a Frank: Franks were individuals, collectively they make a people. Srnec (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm new to this, so I appreciate your patience.
 * >>Charlemagne could arguably belong in "Franks" because he was a Frank: Franks were individuals, collectively they make a people.<< Can we not simply replace "Franks" with "Germanic People", and your sentence above would still make sense?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.6.63 (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No. "Peoples" are not "persons". (Are you aware of the distinction? Are you a native English speaker? Or just young? Or just unfamiliar with it?) Germanic peoples are not Germanic persons or Germanic people. Charlemagne fits in with Germanic people, but not Germanic peoples. Subtle, but significant. A people is a group or tribe or some such thing. People are persons collectively. Persons are just individual humans. Charlemagne is a person, he is one of many Frankish people who have lived and died. He is not one of the Germanic peoples. The Franks form one of the Germanic peoples. When "people" is pluralised it must refer to collectivities and Charlemagne is not a collectivity. Srnec (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote "Germanic People", not "Peoples". So, reading your post, it's sounds like you're agreeing with me, no?  24.17.6.63 (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Argh! You're right, I didn't read you close enough. >>Charlemagne could arguably belong in "Germanic people" because he was a Germanic person: Germanic persons were individuals, collectively they make a people.<< Note that "Germanic people were individuals" sounds wrong (I'm not sure if is, but I think it is). The category "Germanic peoples" is misplaced. The category "Germanic people" is way too broad. As an Anglophone, I qualify for that category! Srnec (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add "Germanic people" to the categories list. You did say "Charlemagne fits in with Germanic people", and just because you yourself fit in the category, is no reason not too ;-)   You are welcome to be part of the category.
 * Germanic people is too broad. It includes every speaker of English, since English is a Germanic language and many scholars would argue against using the term "Germanic" any other way. This is not to say it is never used to refer to a people and not a language. It is, but such usage is disputed these days. Wikipedia is behind the times in this regard. More specific categories already exist from which the careful reader can easily figure out exactly what Charlemagne was. Srnec (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel you have contradicted yourself. I disagree with your conclusion and feel this addition only adds information and does not contradict anything in the article.  If I add this category, are you going to remove it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.6.63 (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Where have I contradicted myself? It adds no information that is not already in the article: that Charlemagne spoke a Germanic tongue and that he was a Frank (the Franks were a "Germanic people"). It is just less specific than information that is already there. I would not immediately remove it (someone else might), but I would try to convince you that it is not needed. Srnec (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think it adds a good amount of "specific" information. If the article is so clear, why have there been so many disputes of who he was, most commonly whether he was "French" or not.  Clearly, if he is considered a Germanic Person, people wouldn't refer to him as a "French King",which the current article leave "open" to interpretation.  I think if the addition is correct, AND adds clarify without confusing other facts, it MUST be added.  This category addition does all this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.6.63 (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much debate over his status as a "French king" (he wasn't). But even if he is Germanic, that says nothing about whether he was a "French king" (he wasn't) or not. Germanic =/= German in English. He is a Frank. All Franks are "Germanic" (if we accept it for describing ethnicities), so calling him a Frank suffices. Charlemagne was a Frankish king. In English also, Frank =/= French. We must be careful not to be anachronistic. Do you have a problem with the article's description of who Charlemagne was? Srnec (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

flags on articles
About the usage of the flag on Crown of Aragon, I just found this page that you might find useful: Use_of_flags_in_articles. You could ask on their talk page about this matter --Enric Naval (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to a specific section? I don't have time to peruse the whole thing. Sorry. Srnec (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Im talking that it doesn't infringe on any point, so I'll have to list every point and explain how it doesn't infringe it. Sorry for the long post.


 * From the summary:
 * 1 - "Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative.", the flag image informs the reader of the use of the flag by the Kings of Aragon. Im not insisting on it being there for decorative purposes.
 * 7 - "Flag images should not be used inappropriately, and should explain their applicability in the caption if usage of the flag is limited in some way." The current caption of the flag makes explicit the restriction of them being used exclusively the monarchs of the crown as expression of their soverignty, and explicitates that the image is a pennon
 * 8 - "Non-national flags should be used only when directly relevant (e.g., articles on a city may include the city flag)". Relevant, because an article on a crown should display the non-national personal flag used by the monarchs of the crown
 * Additionally, it doesn't seem to infringe any of the other points of the summary, so it's a mostly correct use that doesn't seem to make any specific wrong use, at least with the current caption.


 * From the body:
 * "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" it's not emphasizing nationality (not that I know of)
 * "Help the reader rather than decorate" (see point 1 from summary above)
 * "Not a substitute for pictures of the subject" It's not substituting any king picture
 * "Using too many flags" it's the only flag on the article
 * "Repurposing flags beyond their legitimate scope" the caption is describing the legitime scope of the flag
 * "Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance" it's not subnational
 * "Accompany flags with country names" the infobox has the name of the crown on it
 * "Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used" flag is re-used later without mentioning the crown name
 * "Do not rewrite history" the flag is not contested as a symbol for the kings of the crown, that I know of
 * "Use historical flags in contexts where the difference matters" we are using the flag that is used since Alfonso II of Aragon
 * "Entities without flags until after a certain point in time" same as above
 * "Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations" the crown was sovereign.
 * "Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations" no connotations, at least with the current neutral caption
 * "Biographical use" not a biographie, and not an article about a specific king


 * (I skipped a few points that didn't apply) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

please


BnF 854, folio 108r. Alfonso II of Aragon in a 13th-century chansonnier. Notice the bars of Aragon on the caparison.

Could you tell me where did you find this miniature from? It's to check if it is Alfons, count-king of Aragon-Catalonia or it's Alfons, count of Provence. Thanks. --Sclua (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know the manuscript source. I'm not sure off the top of my head where I got it from. I read a lot of books. I am sure that it is Alfonso II of Aragon, not the count of Provence, who never wrote Occitan poetry. Lo rei Amfos was a troubadour, the image is taken probably from Margarita Egan's Vidas of the Troubadours, where it accompanied Alfonso's vida. Srnec (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

consensus proposal on House of Aragon
I made a proposal on House of Aragon to split the article, summarized more concisely on my next comment. Do you agree to this solution as a consensus to avoid further edit wars? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for creating the disambiguation page. I was so busy today that I couldn't even check the page until now --Enric Naval (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. Srnec (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Latin help
Yeah that looks about right...all the nouns are plural if you want to be really literal. And "pro" seems to mean "because of" or "according to" their worldly desire (those usually translate "per" but they work for "pro" too, especially if there is some metrical reason to use the ablative rather than the accusative). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

rfc for crown of aragon is done
the bot will take a pair of days at most to finish setting up all the pages and stuff (please check that the wording of the rfc is correct, but don't try to correct it yourself, because if the bot is at the middle of the process then it may get confused and create the rfc incorrectly --Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. Srnec (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I closed the RfC. I think that the comment by the creator of the infobox is enough to close the issue.


 * Btw, I got "The medieval Crown of Aragon. A short history" from T.N.Bisson. I looked over it a bit, and I found interesting stuff. For example, I see that Crown of Aragon is not linking to Treaty_of_Cazorla despite this treaty combined with Treaty of Corbeil being what forced the crown to a expansion throught the mediterranean. The north, west and south frontiers had been written down on those treaties and east was the only way of expansion left. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh, when did I agree to remove also all the wikilinks on "See also" section? There were some relevant links like Union of Aragon, and specially List of Aragonese monarchs. Do you mind if I restore some? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy if they found a place in the article rather than in a meaningless list of arbitrary links. If all of those links I removed should truly "also be seen" by the reader, then they are worthy of being mentioned in context somewhere in the article. We need to work on improving the body of the article now. Srnec (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, you are totally right. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Friuli
ThankS! --Attilios (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. Sorry I couldn't do more. Srnec (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 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) 02:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Louis Quinze incomplete
You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Louis Quinze to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:


 * 1) Added    at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article.  This creates the required template for you there.
 * 2) Added  NewName  to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
 * 3) Added  PageName  to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

lost one of your edits while reverting
Sorry, Snerc, I just accidentally steamrolled this change of yours whilie reverting a misquote. Your change was correct and it was actually preserved, but you hadn't noticed that the former edit had also eliminated a reference to the Roussillon that was on both of the sources for the paragraph and is an important part of the treaty (Roussillon was given away because it was at the other side of the "natural frontier") --Enric Naval (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooops, you are right. "Comtal" is a catalanism from the catalan title "Comte", the right word is Comital . The wording is also clearer now. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A Note
I wanted to note that I renamed De Doctrina Christiana (Milton) to capitalize the second term based on the manuscript capitalization provided on a picture I just added to the page. I hope you don't mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Srnec (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Work
Keep up the good work, Srnec. Your many articles look great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.246.183 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou. I know who you are. Srnec (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPM
If you want to comment on something, do so, and leave your comment, but dont ever alter what I write to make it seem like I wrote it. —  Κ aiba 05:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not want to comment, I merely wanted a better and less controversial page move. I was careful that my edit did not conflict with your reasoning for the move. It seems to me I could either have simply removed the requested with the edit summary "controverial" or I could edit the move (and not your comment) to be uncontroversial. I still believe the latter course of action was wiser. Srnec (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The simple fact is that I wrote that I wanted the page moved to a different target and you changed the target name and made it seem like I wrote it, and the moving administrator very well might have thought that I was the one who wrote it. Screw that it kept the reasoning, it doesn't mean crap, basic behavior guidelines for Wikipedia state not to edit comments on pages like that unless they are your own. If you thought it was controversial, removing it would have even been inappropriate, because there is a section for incomplete requests right below the section you edited. Bottom line is, don't edit my comments, period. —  Κ aiba 05:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The layers of procedure that one must navigate to do the simple and obvious... I didn't see the "Incomplete and contested proposals" section. I still think my course of action was by far the most efficient and I can't see why you would be offended to have an admin think that you had proposed the move to Andante (song). The chief purpose here is to better the encyclopaedia and I thought that was what I was doing, even if I treated your "comment" as less than sacrosanct. Srnec (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For fucks sake, just read Talk page guidelines
 * It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.
 * Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so.
 * Bottom line is, don't edit my comments and if I see you do it again I'm going to report it. —  Κ aiba 01:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise. Srnec (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Corsica
Hi srnec. Quite a discussion history you have here. However, you start with me clean slate. I noticed your disagreements on the Medieval Corsica article and that does not bother me. The problem I was trying to address remains. I put a tag to flag it and started the discussion and am putting this in here now to call your attention to the discussion should you be further interested. I can see how the problem occurred but ignoring it is probably going to make it worse. Later (don't know when),Dave (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 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) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello Srnec, after your recent comments at the Anglo-Saxon runes page, I thought you might be interested in this: The WikiProject also has a runic studies task force if you're more interested in that. bloodofox: (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am nothing of a rune expert, or even greatly interested. The debate over capitalisation just caught my eye and I notced that the lead needed tweaking. In the end, I thought I preferred the term "Futhorc" b/c in fact I found it difficult when I was first trying to grasp it to realise that there were different futhorcs/futharks/futhorks. I thought the move would actually help clear it up. That said, I do have interest in the "Germanic successor states of the Roman Empire" (which needs the quotation marks!) and I try to follow the ongoing scholarly debates over the meaning of "Germanic" and the proper understanding of these "Germanic" states and the so-called Migrations etc. It is all very intersting. Thankyou for the invitation. Srnec (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you will find quite a lot of the project scope fits into this area as there's already a dedicated project to the later Norse history and so, in practice, a lot of what is being handled centers on Migration Period topics which might be of interest to you. I agree that it's an extremely interesting area. bloodofox: (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks to help me on the Crown of Aragon article. They are trying to block me, are trying that i leave to edit, i am suffering mobbing from both users with lots of threatens. Now, i am not able to access to the talk page of the article Coat of arms of Catalonia. I think it is illegal, i am sure that it is from Spanish hacker, i don't know where to report it. It is Spanish fascism, worse than Chinese one because nobody knows what is happened on the Spanish wikipedia but everybody knows what happens in the Chinesese or Iranian ones. --Sclua (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

pennon sources
Unfortunately, all the relevant literature about pennons seems to be obssesed on arguing about the Pennon of the Conquest.

By the way, I think when User:Sclua is referring to what happened on the spanish wikipedia, he is complaining about the spanish article on the catalan flag where all unsourced facts have been deleted summarily, and sockpuppets have been trying to insert it again, see  and  for two different single purpose users trying to insert the same unsourced information. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have the time, please look over Maurice's new article, Coat of arms of the Crown of Aragon, for accuracy and reliable sources. Reliability of sources is the most difficult thing to pin down when the subject is a controversial one, like this one. Sometimes you can easily find ten sources to say one thing and ten to say the exact opposite and have no way of determining which are preferable. Srnec (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article The Kingdom of the Lombards incomplete
You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page The Kingdom of the Lombards to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:


 * 1) Added    at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article.  This creates the required template for you there.
 * 2) Added  NewName  to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
 * 3) Added  PageName  to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The request is quite complete. No voting is required. Srnec (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Onlyinclude
The page is an FL and is linked to from the Featured content portal, which is rigged to randomly show an FL. The onlyinclude templates on the page dictate which portion of the list will be shown on that page. If they are removed, then the entire page will be shown, which will mess up the portal. -- Scorpion0422 23:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, but now the white space isn't appearing, so it doesn't matter. Srnec (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Troubadours
Hi, thanks for the note. I wouldn't say I actually like that sort of work, but it needs doing (said the masochist!). The main reason I started was that Category:Medieval Welsh poets was created and when I looked at the medieval poets cat it seemed a bit unfair and irrational that the troubadours, with all due respect to them, should be left hogging all the limelight. I'm also surprised there are not more sub-cats. I haven't the time to do so, but what about medieval poets of other languages/nationalities? I guess I'll "knock off" the remaining troubadours in bursts if I've got the time, but don't feel shy if you have the time to spare! Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni Visconti (disambiguation)
Hi. Is John of Gallura really supposed to be included or is it a mistake? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely he is. Did you check out his article? He was a "Giovanni Visconti" even if his branch of the family is not that famous. He is referred to in Italian historiograhy by this name and it is not hard to come by, but I think "John" is more common in English and he ruled Gallura, hence the article title. Srnec (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. I did skim the article, but didn't notice the "Visconoti." Sorry for the bother. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A little help?
An IP has been adding some rather odd information to John of Lusignan; see Talk:John of Lusignan. Do you know of any medieval history editors who speak Italian and could provide an independent view on the subject? Choess (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the timely assistance. Choess (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Military History of the Crusades
Thanks for adding your generous comment in the discussion section. It soothed my ruffled feathers. It is true that articles are "edited mercilessly ..." and really don't "belong" to anyone, but I guess I take pride in writing them anyway. Djmaschek (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maximian
I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over this, but do you really think that I gave no thought to the title or the first sentence of the article when I created it? With regard to the first sentences of articles, the Manual of Style says, "Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be in boldface," so why exactly are you insisting that they be boldface? Do you actually know anything about Maximian, or are you just being contrary? Deor (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just find the lengthy parenthesis after the original name to be a distraction, especially with three very similar names repeated so close together (Maximianus ... Maximian ... Maximianus). I am trying to reduce it to a minimum and mark off the names as distinct from the rest of the text. That's all. (I don't assume you put no thought into it, but sometimes when we are very familiar with a topic it is hard to tell what is coming across the best to those unfamiliar (like myself). I know this from my own experiences going back and re-reading old articles I wrote only to find passages that even I can't figure out because I have forgotten some minor detail that was fresh in my mind when I wrote it.) In short, I'm not being contrary, but the MoS just gets more and more useless everyday as it gets more and more outdated. Maximian is just an anglicisation and "Etruscus" is just a posthumous nickname. That should be made clear somehow, instead of making it look as if there are three very distinct ways of referring to this guy. Srnec (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is repetition of "called" worse than repetition of "Maximianus"? :) Srnec (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC on the conduct of a user you have been involved with
Please check Requests_for_comment/Sclua and feel free to comment there --Enric Naval (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 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) 20:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Merogais
You said my article looked like it was "written by a child". Well, I'll just let you know that it WAS written by a child; I am 8 years old! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rud Hud Hudibras (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I just have an eye for those sorts of things. Srnec (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Julian the Apostate (again)
I am contacting you because you participated in a recent discussion at Talk:Julian the Apostate about changing the title of the page. That discussion closed, and immediately afterwards a new proposal was created to move the page to Julian. Please give your opinion of this new proposal at Talk:Julian the Apostate. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)