User talk:Urselius/Archive 3

USS United States vs HMS Macedonian
Care to team up with me and bring that article up to GA?

Capture of the USS Chesapeake
Thanks for the clean up and additions I wrote! Nicely done and again my thanks! Tirronan (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Royal Badges of England
Your concerns at Talk:Royal Badges of England have been addressed! Best Regards and Thank you, Sodacan (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Magnus Maximus
I tried to rewrite the sentence about Maximus being the last significant emperor from Britain/Northern Gaul. You mention Constantine III but little is known about him and he (like Honorius and the usurpers of the early 5th century) were clearly much weaker. Aegidius and Syagrius were essentially post Roman warlords. I agree with you that the "real imperial activity" part might be bit misleading since these provinces continued to pledge allegiance to the empire for decades after the execution of Maximus. Mlindroo (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources for ancestry trees
My experience is that these trees are often not checked and wrong and it only takes one mistake for it to invalidate every ancestor from that point back (if a parent is wrong half the tree, grandparent 1/4 great-grandparents 1/8 etc). Common example that cause problems are:
 * A man has two wives and the child is reported as the son/daughter of the wrong wife.
 * There are two people with similar names born around the same time and the link chosen is to the wrong person.
 * A generational problem. EG some source record that a child was born to the "Earl of Summers" when what they meant was the "Earl of Summers" in waiting. This can be particularly a problem if the child was born the same year the old Earl died.
 * When there is a disagreement between sources over numbering a noble family (See for an example a footnote to Lord Boyd).

All these potential errors, and others not listed here, is why these ancestry trees need to be fully cited, particularly if there is no one source because that means that they are being put together by Wikipedia editors, who are not usually not professional historians (often these lists attract people more interested in genealogy than history).

If we look at a list like List of MPs nominated to the English parliament in 1653 then individual members do not directly affect the validity of other members in the list. But we still expect them to have a source for the members and do not expect someone who wants to use the list to have to go to each member in the list to look for the source that validates their membership of the list. These ahnentafel are lists but of a special type because in the case of an ancestry tree the members of that tree are dependent on other members of the tree so without sources the list is a classic case of sourced WP:OR (with many sources used it could be argued in is then WP:SYN but as it is not to advance a POV I think we can put that to one side).

Even in a simple list, like a list of MPs above, the sources often do not agree (see this footnote). So how much more likely is it that if professional historians can disagree on the numbers in the membership of the House of Common that a Wikipedia editor will make a mistake? Mistakes are a real problem because theses ahnentafel creations are often added to an article whole and with no sources to back them up and as so few corrections are made to them, it is a sign that they are often not checked by other editors for errors. Asking for sources is a sure fire way to make sure that over time that as sources are added the entries are checked by other editors and if they are not it warns the reader that the Ancestry section may contain errors.

If these ancestor trees were half decently footnoted I would expect some/many(?) of them to contain notes on disagreements in the sources. How many have you ever seen with such footnotes? I do not think I have seen one and I have looked in passing at hundreds if not thousands of them when using AWB to alter citations to unreliable sources (see for example (the first one I came across when looking for an example for this posting): John I, Duke of Cleves). -- PBS (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Lots yes but not one for every member for every level. In most cases every member in ever other level. So in the example of Charles II you could exclude his parents as they will be in the body of the text but that ends up with needing sources for grandparents and great-great-grandparents. But if you include parents and great-grandparents then those sources--if they are half way comprehensive--will give you the rest. So that is a maximum of 10 sources to do the whole tree. In practice it might take a couple more or less. -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

U Manchester coat of arms
The image file was presumably deleted off of Commons, but could be uploaded here as a fair-use file (though there are many requirements which a fair-use file must fulfill). Or someone could make a new rendering of the textual blazon and release that under a free license... AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon settlement
I've really upset this new editor, don't know what to do about it. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Constantinople (1147)
Gatoclass (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=622056295 your edit] to Battle of Satala (298) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * [[File:Galerius follis.jpg|thumb|left|270px|Coin of Galerius as Caesar Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximianus - rendered MAXIMIANUS NOBIL[issimus] C[aesar] on the coin]]

I need some help
Hello dear User. I need your help. I can't normally describe the reference in Basil I article. In his book A Short History of Byzantium (page 214) John Julius Norwich wrote about native language of Basil. But I just can not normally put the ref. Please help. M.Karelin (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ridge Helmets
Yeah, Sure. I just got some of the references I was going to add to that page. MMFA (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Reversion
If someone edits a Wikipedia article and makes some worthwile changes, one should think twice before reverting the entire edit. In Manuel I Komnenos, I edited with summary "spaced initials; -which+that; avoid en dash after "between"; unify while/whilst to while; unify among/amongst to among". My summary detailed the five changes I made: You reverted, summarizing "Rv because the use of 'which' is not limited to a non-restrictive modifier in British English, and the article is written in Br,[sic: comma not period] Eng." Assuming arguendo that your reasoning is all correct, you did not offer any reason to revert changes #1 and #3.
 * 1) spaced initials
 * 2) -which+that
 * 3) avoid en dash after "between"
 * 4) unify while/whilst to while
 * 5) unify among/amongst to among

I reverted you with summary '"whilst" is rejected by U.S., Canada, and UK style guides; MOS:NDASH "Do not mix en dashes with prepositions like between and from."' This supports my original change #4 by appeal to external style guides and #3 by appeal to Wikipedia standards.

You reverted again, summarizing "No, please check status of which usage in Br. English." Again you fail to support your reversion of changes #1 and #3.

Regardless of the merits of whilst and amongst as encyclopedia-worthy British English, a Wikipedia article ought to have consistent usage. It is sloppy to mix while and whilst; it is sloppy to mix among and amongst. That is why I unified to while and among.

For a list of style guides that favor while over whilst, see While. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do it here. — Anomalocaris (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

About revisions to John II Komnenos
My apologies to the edits. I was in the process of adding citations, and I think that I'm looking at either a different edition to the book, or perhaps there is page variation to the page numbers for paperback or hardback covers.

The book that I'm using is the Second Edition of the Michael Angold The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204 (1997), and it's a paperback. I was going to work on a few emperor pages (Issac II Angelos and Alexios I) with that book (and a few others) and thought I'd assist in adding citations. You can revert all of the changes with that book that I've made if you like. I don't want to get into any edit wars. Once again, my mistake. LeftAire (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * To be frank, I prefer to leave the citations as it is, for now at least. It was a bit of a headache trying to find those extra citations when the information in the newer edition wasn't as specific on the details (which wasn't too much in retrospect, I suppose). I have to find a few more sources (whether in person or online) for both Isaac II and Alexios I. The second edition was used for Alexios's page, interestingly enough. If I do change it, I'll let you know first, as it seems as if you're responsible for a large portion of the information on the page. It won't be any time soon, though. LeftAire (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

For your information...
Factoid. I don't think I have ever said it was a real word.  Cassianto Talk   09:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Super!
Congratulations, eh? --176.239.98.144 (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As I say at the top of my user-page:

To editors:  Please stop tagging (adding templates) to the top of every article  you read and actually take the time to  fix the problems.

BTW, lead sections do not require citation if an assertion made in the lead is repeated, with a citation, in the body of the article, as was the case of the heroine status of Maria Bonita. Urselius (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! I like your idea of encouraging editors to actually solve problems, instead of "pointing fingers". There are (IMO) too many "watchdogs" on WP, who waste time and energy on unnecessary counselling. Do you allow me to put the Stop Tagging info on my user page? All the best Wikirictor  08:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo
Please could you have a look at this edit from November 2014 and add the year to the short citations so that they can be tied into the long ones in the references section? -- PBS (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is only one edition for each book in the references. Urselius (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Plovdiv
I fully agree with the concept of what you term "cultural cringe factor". This kind of reaction comes from a small group of editors that follow a strict national agenda. Nevertheless most Balkan editors tend to understand some basics about the function of the lead. For example, the Phillipopoulis lead addition was a product of concensus among Greek and Bulgarian editors a couple of years ago.Alexikoua (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Waterloo
Where did you get the idea Prussia should be listed last? This was the last discussion I could find on the matter, and most seem to be in favor of Britain being first and Prussia being second. --Droyselich (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Case filed
A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain Gordon410 (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. This case is being re-filed. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain Gordon410 (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Case re-filed
A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. This case is being re-filed. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain.23Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision_discussion

Thank you. Gordon410 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note also -
Changes at Henry I of England, Henry III of England, John, King of England, William II of England. Discussions on Henry I and John also. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonian army and Thorakitai
That's odd. I thought this article, Ancient Macedonian army, covered the entire history of the Kingdom of Macedon until 168 BC and its conquest by Rome. It ONLY covers the time before and during Alexander's reign? If that's the case, then where is the article explaining the history of the Macedonian army from c. 300 to 168 BC? Does it not exist? I'm not talking about Hellenistic armies as a whole, including Ptolemies and Seleucids. I'm talking specifically about the army of the Macedonian kingdom (exclusively) following the death of Alexander. Pericles of Athens Talk 09:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good points. I've added the image to Hellenistic armies. I'll probably also add it to an article I just discovered: Antigonid Macedonian army. If this doesn't already have a link in the article Ancient Macedonian army, then it definitely should, because that's what I was trying to find. I'm sure that I'm not the first one who was searching for that instead. Cheers. Pericles of Athens  Talk 10:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

University of Manchester
I am confused by your reversal of my edits to the University of Manchester. I had indeed visited their website and was relying on this link to support my edit. The edit was only intended to clarify the presence of discrete schools at the University and to enable a wiki link from Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education. Some clarification would be useful. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk 20:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Redraft of Aquatic ape
Urselius, I've put an outline on User:Chris55/AAH2 have started the redraft and would invite you to contribute if you want to, or add your suggestions to the talk page of that page. Chris55 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite of Aquatic Ape article
Urselius, it's taken me a long time but I've got a draft of the new article ready to be discussed. Its here so could you have a look at it and tell me whether there are any changes you think we should make before it is discussed on the talk page. Thanks. Chris55 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me say that I've come to the conclusion it's unproductive to try and convince MjolnirPants of anything. I won't say more. Did you see the Milam Tarzanist paper I also put on the talk page. Just what we need for the Responses section. Chris55 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, useful indeed. Urselius (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me say that I've come to the conclusion it's unproductive to try and convince MjolnirPants of anything. You say after running into me on a talk page in which I've let myself be convinced of several things, and on which you've not been convinced of anything.... You should really try to avoid focusing on editors and stay focused on the content.
 * Regarding this edit, you might want to avoid making statements like "I can afford an edit war" because an admin can and will block you if they think you're about to follow through on that. I agree with the edit, but the summary is a big red flag. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a finite amount of patience with editors who: 1) do not abide by a consensus, 2) act unilaterally in the face of a consensus, 3) apply Wikipedia guidelines abitrarily and not within a logical framework, (4) quote Wikipedia guidelines to give a form of spurious legitimacy to their arguments, and (5) use obscure wording and sophistry to browbeat other editors. And sometimes I just don't give an oppidan's fart for Wikipedia and its denizens. Urselius (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

3RR on UOM
I don't tend to template the regulars but I've warned Japanmomo about edit warring and so I'll note it here as well, please be mindful of WP:3RR on University of Manchester. Woody (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Coppergate Helmet
Alex Shih (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.44.159 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Shaizar
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Shaizar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Shaizar
The article Siege of Shaizar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Shaizar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alexios V Doukas
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alexios V Doukas you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alexios V Doukas
The article Alexios V Doukas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alexios V Doukas for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Constantine V
Hi Urselius! The article is OK from a historical narrative perspective, but the scholarship in it is rather outdated. I strongly recommend getting Ilse Rochow's ''Kaiser Konstantin V. (741–775). Materialien zu seinem Leben und Nachleben, and consulting the works by John Haldon and Leslie Brubaker on Byzantium in the Iconoclast era and Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm'' that offer a more up-to-date scholarship on the context and issues of the reign. Cheers, --Constantine  ✍  08:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

KG V-class ships
Why are you preventing the bot from consolidating refs and adding the MOS-required non-breaking space between measurements?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Sturmvogel 66, I will tell, you. A) It makes not a jot of difference to how it appears on the page. B) I cannot make any sense of how the citation notation works, I cannot change or add or subtract citations with any ease. Despite being a scientist, I do not enjoy wading through unnecessarily difficult 'coding' for a simple thing like a citation. " < /ref >" works for me, and the formatting makes no difference to how the page looks anyway (Back to reason A)
 * It's pretty common in historical articles. A simple variant of the Chicago style: author(s), a date if needed to disambiguate, and page number(s). Not the elaborate formating of APA or MLA. Be advised that you cannot change the existing citation style as per WP:CITEVAR, though you can use your own if you wish.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

References on talk pages
Do you know about that keeps the refs in the appropriate section? Doug Weller talk 10:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No. I have little knowledge in how Wikipedia works at the nuts and bolts level. My interests are essentially limited to content. It is only when I come up against disruptive editing, thankfully relatively rarely, that I am forced into using 'wiki-apparatus'. Urselius (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Satala
Hey there, thanks for making that Battle of Satala article look sexy.


 * I wrote about 90% of the article - it was a one para stub before I took it in hand. Urselius (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

But ya you might wanna take a look at this. The name of the article has been like that for quite a few years now.

Regards. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Two things. (1) Names of Persian dynastic states: Achaemenid, Selucid, Saffarid, Ziyarid, Samanids, Sajid, Sallarid, Ilyasids, Buyid, Ghaznavid. There is a pattern here - the only prominent exception is Parthian.  (2) While also not perfect there tends to be a distinction in name endings between Western and Eastern dynastic states: Carolingian, Merovingian, Ottonian, Capetian, versus: Abbasid, Tulunid, Fatimid, Ayyubid, etc.


 * 'Sassanid' is a perfectly legitimate term, widely used in scholarship and changing a form of name in an article without any discussion is not the done thing. Urselius (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Dunno why you're making such a big deal out of it. The name 'Sasanian' is more popular and its the name of the Wikipedia article (comparing it to other dynasty names is completely pointless/irrelevant), but aight have it your way it's not that big. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Urselius
Your contributions are admirable, though it is clear from interaction that you are a left wing person, i have written some more on the oppenheimer/sykes page on the british dna history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bell beakerman (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I have doubts about the Spanish Plate Armor
Spain at the beginning of the sixteenth century imported Plate Armor? More from Italy or from Germany?

Then I understand that Spanish creates his own Plate Armor and Closed Helmets. Do not? JamesOredan (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You introduced 'Spain' into a section that had citations that did not include any mention of Spain. Oakeshott mentions the 'sparrow-beaked' helmets as being typical of Italy, France and England. He did not mention Spain. The whole section is about the differences between styles of helmets found in Germany and in the places already mentioned. If you can find a book or journal mentioning the use of the 'sparrow-beaked' form of helmet in Spain by all means add it. You cannot change the content of a section that has a cited reference without (a) checking the reference to ensure that it mentions what you are adding, or (b) finding a new reference that supports your addition. Urselius (talk)

I'm not complaining. It is not a complaint about the edition. That does not matter.

I only ask him if Spain bought more from Italy or from Germany, and if in the middle XVI Spain already made his own plate armor. I only ask for curiosity.


 * By the 1550s Diego de Cajas was active as a decorator of swords and armour, but I don't know of any prominent makers. I know that Philip II had armours made in Augsburg, and Charles V had German armours, but Spanish connections with Milan were also strong, and Ferdinand of Aragon owned at least one Milanese armour. I would imagine that Spain imported armour from both Germany and Italy. Urselius (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense. In addition, the Spanish Empire at that time had in possession all the Duchy of Milan. And Carlos V, (I of Spain) had was the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, so I suppose he also used in his armies German armor. JamesOredan (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Byzantine army (Komnenian era)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Byzantine army (Komnenian era) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Byzantine army (Komnenian era)
The article Byzantine army (Komnenian era) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Byzantine army (Komnenian era) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Basil I
I nominated the article on Basil I for GA status and it was failed within days. However, I am confident that if would pass if you, the main contributor to the article, nominated it. Please consider doing so when you have the time. Векочел (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Byzantine army (Komnenian era)
The article Byzantine army (Komnenian era) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Byzantine army (Komnenian era) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Seppings
Hi Urselius, Glenmore vs. Kent as first use of cross bracing. I have a cite from the Dictionary of National Biography that says Glenmore was first. He had her retrofitted in 1800 as an experiment. Kent was apparently the first use in a new construction. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Basil II
Do you have any improvements to suggest for the article on Basil II? Векочел (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine V
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constantine V you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine V
The article Constantine V you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Constantine V for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine V
The article Constantine V you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Constantine V for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Cerdic of Wessex
You deleted some of the Cerdic of Wessex etymology as "too extreme". Can you elaborate?

Also you added "*Coroticos is etymologically distinct from Caratacus" It isn't an etymological distinction. One is the Latinised version of a common Celtic name, the other is a reconstructed phonology.

"Ceretic derives from *Coroticos, while Caradoc/Caradawg derive from Caratacus." This is reductive at best, Cerdic and the near contemporary examples I gave would not have held any such distinction between *Coroticos and Caratacus. This is the same name passing through (probably vulgar) Latin into Old Welsh or Wessex dialect of Old English.

Happy to discuss.

Cymrogogoch (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There are Germanic derivations for Cerdic in existence, I personally don't think that they are very valid, but they exist. Therefore, any expressions on Wikipedia must stop short of absolute claims for a Brittonic origin. Yes, *Coroticos/*Caraticos are hypothetical constructions from later names using sound shifts etc., and Caratacus is a real Brittonic name in Latin clothes. However, Caratacus/*Caratacos (with an -A- before the -C-) is not the same as the separate name *Caraticos (with a long -I- before the -C-). The laws of sound change do not allow one to be derived from the other, or for cross-over in their descendants. Also all reputable scholarly treatments of the origins of Cerdic say that his name derives from *Coroticos (older) or *Caraticos (newer) and none link the name with Caratacus. What historian or linguist could resist linking the progenitor of the most successful Anglo-Saxon dynasty to the pre-Roman British hero? However, none do! Urselius (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I agree that the "Britishness" of the name shouldn't be stated as academically undisputed, or that a Germanic origin for Cerdic is indeed possible, if unlikely.


 * I still don't get the relevance of the vowel shifts in *Coroticos/*Caratacos/*Caraticus, happy to limit the reconstructions to just *Coroticos, as long as the obvious connection with Caractacus is stated. Finally, this still doesn't precludes the Anglicisation Cerdic being coeval with Ceredic, a popular regal name throughout Celtic Britain.


 * If you can find a reputable source (by an academic historian or linguist/philologist) for a connection to Caratacus, then fine, but not otherwise. I had a linguist spell out to me how *Caraticos and *Caratacos were as different as chalk and cheese, despite their overall similarity. The connection of Cerdic with Ceretic is included, but if you want to expand on this then do so. Wikipedia can be frustrating, the brother of St. Chad, Cynibil, mentioned by Bede, shouts out that his name derives from Cunobelinus and the name of the West Saxon king Cynegils looks a lot like the Welsh Cynglas (Cuneglassus), but I can find no support for these surmises in the literature so they remain unexplored. Urselius (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "If you can find a reputable source..." believe me, I'm looking! There is a well known lack of academic study (let alone published journals) concerned with Celtic etymology, I studied it as an undergraduate and it's slowly improved in the decades since then, but interpretive linguistics and especially etymology are notorious for not accepting the more obvious derivation if it challenges an established orthodoxy. That's why we are still labouring under the popular understandings that "Shakespeare 'invented' a third of the English language (Thanks OED!)." And that "There are more Gaulish (or Hawaiian) words in modern British English than Scots, Gaelic and Welsh combined."


 * Would still be interested to know how *Caraticos and *Caratacos can so assuredly be separated. That penultimate vowel can only be either the Celtic article (like the "o" in Cunobelin and Vercingetorix) or the first vowel of the second element (which is entirely lost in all post-Roman instances).


 * Penda of Merica is also someone who's early dynasty appears to use a partly Celtic nomenclature. As for St Chad's family, I think the Yorkshire Archaeological society supports this idea and interprets Bede's assertions in this way. (journal avialable online, Whitakers' 'Elmete and Loidis' is better but I've not found an online version yet).


 * Finally, thanks again for replying. Have a great day.


 * Hi, Just found this, "For instance, the name of the supposed founder of the royal  house  of  Wessex,  Cerdic,  was  an  Old  English  version  of  Caratacus,  a  former  ruler  of  Britain." in: The Burial of Kings in Anglo-Saxon EnglandChapter Author(s): BARBARA YORKE Book Title: Kingship, Legislation and Power in Anglo-Saxon England Book Editor(s): GALE R. OWEN-CROCKER, BRIAN W. SCHNEIDER Published by: Boydell & Brewer, Boydell Press. (2013) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt31njkk.13 - on JSTOR. However, I'm a bit suspicious, as it cites David  Parsons,  ‘British  *Caraticos,  Old  English  Cerdic’, and I don't remember this connection being asserted there. Urselius (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

McDougall Centre
The centre has an article Burlington Street drill hall, Manchester which gives an account of its use by the VUM. A note about the closure has been removed because it had no source but the article seems incomplete if nothing is said there about the last 15 years. (A citation for the closure would be useful.) I have added some information from 1951--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see: http://www.fencingforum.com/forum/showthread.php?1935-Universities-of-Manchester-Mcdougall-Sports-Centre-Farewell-Competion

https://democracy.manchester.gov.uk/documents/s2346/Manchester%20Science%20Park%20SRF%20Update.pdf "Purpose-built student accommodation on the vacant McDougall Centre site. The site has the capacity to accommodate buildings of between 6 and 10 storeys."

Also if you use the streetview feature on Google map the centre is boarded up, graffitied and the rendering is falling off - the building is obviously unused. The university sports are now housed in the Sugden Centre - ex-UMIST - and the Aquatics Centre, for swimming. Urselius (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information: I have added the fencing forum as a reference. If it is replaced by another building it is doubtful if that fact is important enough to be mentioned.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

RE:2001:8003:4E41:F200:6864:D098:3C24:9CA5
Please read IPs are human too. There is no reason to view this user with suspicion per WP:AGF which is an important conduct policy as you probably are aware. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I try to be entirely unaware of WP:everything/anything.

Also:

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Utterly ridiculous - belittling, really? I informed the editor that his edits would be treated with less suspicion if he created an account. This is a truth known to all regular editors, fluffy inclusivity directives notwithstanding. Urselius (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi. I noticed the dispute at ANI and I feel that it would help avoid such situations in the future if you try to use more meaningful edit summaries. I know it's a pain but it can be valuable. Deb (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I misread the tenacity and knowledge of wiki-apparatus of the unregistered user. Usually such editors are casual, they change something, for good or ill, and then flit on. I stand by my reversal of his or her edits on the grounds that they are too detailed and their length makes the treatment of South Asia disproportionate compared to the rest of the world. When I edit established pages that have other dedicated editors I always include an edit summary, it is only common courtesy to do so. However, I work on many fairly obscure subjects and when I am creating or expanding such pages I usually don't, excepting a first edit, as it is just a waste of time and effort on my part. Also constant edit summarising tends to stifle any creative flow - I consider appropriate citation to be a million times more important than edit summaries. Urselius (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

For Byzantine efforts
Thank you, much appreciated. Urselius (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

cooperation
Hi, I am Iman Fakhri, a master student of Europe History at Sbu and administrator on the Persian Wikipedia. According to my interests, I work on rewriting and extending Crusades and Medeival Articles in the Persian Wikipedia (3 Featured Articles Battle of Hattin, Fourth Crusade and List of Queens of Jerusalem and 11 Good Articles People's Crusade, First Crusade, Second Crusade, Third Crusade, Fifth Crusade, Sixth Crusade, Eighth Crusade, Siege of Antioch, Battle of Arsuf, Battle of Hastings and etc ). I intend to rewrite articles in the same field as yours. I realized that it is your field of expertise too. Therefore I would ask for your assistance and cooperation to rewritten crusades articles. I hope to hear from you soon -- ImanFakhri  Talk  01:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Hi, I'm always willing to help to the best of my abilities and available time. Urselius (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Constantine V
Why are you restoring the American MDY date format yet saying the article should be in British DMY format? GiantSnowman 16:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I cease to know which is which - it's of minuscule importance anyway. Urselius (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gökböri
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gökböri you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gökböri
The article Gökböri you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gökböri for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks once more - your review is most appreciated. Urselius (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit to Boggart
Hi! You moved my "citation needed" note Popular Culture section of the page for Boggart, with the comment "Why not the whole paragraph?" I wanted to specifically point to the mention of Tasha Tudor, since I've had trouble finding any evidence that her books ever featured "brownies which turn into boggarts when angered". I don't edit on Wikipedia all that often and was curious, what would be the best way to indicate in-page that I think one specific phrase in a paragraph needs more evidence? Thank you. Sgallison (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it just struck me as odd to highlight one phrase in a whole paragraph in need of citation. Perhaps just delete the section you disagree with and give your reasons in the edit. Urselius (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Michael III
Hi. You say that "all other sources" give his birth date as 19 January, but I can't find a single source that does, let alone the sources quoted in the article. I notice that the German wikipedia doesn't give a date except for the year 839. I think it's probably sensible for me to change the intro to reflect the lack of a reliable source. Deb (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)