User talk:Srnec/Archive, 10 December 2005–8 January 2008
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 9 January–20 July 2008
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 21 July 2008–23 February 2009
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 24 February 2009–14 August 2009
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 August 2009–14 June 2010
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 June 2010–17 May 2011
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 18 May 2011–15 May 2013
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 16 May 2013–14 March 2014
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 March 2014–28 March 2016
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 29 March 2016–3 March 2018

User:Srnec/DYK

Why are you reverting improvements? Do you have any subject mater expertise on Burkina Faso? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65sugg (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@65sugg: I did not revert any improvements. If you want the article title to change, see the process at WP:RM. —Srnec (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did revert improvements beyond the name change. There's many erroneous and unsourced claims I removed as well as updating for consistent terminology and spelling. 65sugg (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also already did a correct move using the process that you reverted

Move log

18:36, 31 May 2022 65sugg talk contribs moved page List of rulers of Wogodogo to List of rulers of Mogho Naabas (1. Wogodogo is no longer used, if anything it should be Ouagadougou, 2. In present day the Mogho Naaba has no political power and only serves as a traditional ruler, the actual rulers of Ouagadougou would include Mayors and such. 3. This list is really a list of those who have held the title "Mogho Naaba" which in fact predates the existence of Ouagadougou) (revert) 65sugg (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Duchy of Sorrento I am trying to better layout the article, add more recent sources in addition to those already existing. Each phrase will be well referenced and documented. Wait for me to complete the article. --Peter39c (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC) You prefer that I can use a draft in the meantime that I complete the article. --Peter39c (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Friend, I am befuddled by the changes to the disambiguation of Jack Lindsay (Writer) to be a redirect from Jack Lindsay (Writer) back to Jack Lindsay; the same individual. Please explain. (Sir Gerald Edits (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Why do you erase my edition? アステール王子 (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who says she's famous for being a purely female line ancestor of Queen Victoria? This is not a notable fact about her. Or do you have a source that says it is? Srnec (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, “famous“ was an inadequate expression, but she is a “purely“ female line ancestor of all of these big names, Queen Victoria, Wilhelm II, Edward VII, Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, last Queen consort Alexandra and last crown prince Alexei of Russian Empire, Victoria Eugenie, Queen consort of Spain, Ernest Louis of Hesse and by Rhine. I think this is very important fact about hirtory and her. アステール王子 (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But what you think is an important fact is not necessarily what Wikipedia presents as an important fact. Why is lineal descent in the female line of any significance at all? Do any authors say it is? Does any author make the Garsenda–Victoria connection? We need reliable sources, not your own research. —Srnec (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK.I understood. Sorry. アステール王子 (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter of Castile, Lord of Cameros, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belmez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

Hey mate,

I replied to your comment on the talk page of “Carloman of Bavaria”. Would like to get your thoughts on it. Thanks PrinceofFrancia (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Kalfün (Khalfun) was probably of Berber stock", please do research on the Berber role in Sicily.

The Arab dynasty depended on the Berbers heavily and dealt directly with Berber Chiefs & they kept them scattered in frontier towns to avoid revolts, the Berbers in Sicily were Muslim & in alliance with the Dynasty. Inside Palermo lived the Arab minority, protected by Slave soldiers (Serb-Croat), the Berbers were not allowed to amass that close to the palace & commercial centers. In the weaker later stages of the Emirate, Local Berber lords waged their own wars and enslaved Byzantine Siculos (Culturally Greek Christians). Those slaves started appearing in record a few decades after the fall of Bari (mainly sold in North Africa). The Slavic stock in Sicily was probably loyal to the Byzantine faction that invited the Aghlabids over. Aghlabids typical to other Arab dynasties had a large stock of African concubines, they assigned the children of concubines tribal names, Khalfun is mentioned as part of Rabia, making him more than likely the offspring of an African concubine. Mifraq (could possibly be a Slavic soldier slave from Palermo, because he was not addressed with any tribal name by historians who mention his attempts to get recognition as Wali and he might served in the same capacity prior to taking over), Sawdan is the offspring of a Kalbid Arab, unlike Khalfun his tribal name associates him with the competing Kalbids, who later allied with the North African Fatimids. Concubine offspring was the dominant type in the Arab dynasties in Sicily, the early offspring was largely African (Nubian, Ethiopian & more southern Subsaharans), taking Siculo slaves was much more dominant in the later stages of the conquest, Bari is a by-product of the early stage of the conquest. Droveaxle (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khalfun is described as al-Barbari by Baladuri. In Marco Di Branco's words: "era certamente di stirpe berbera". What are your sources? Srnec (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greeks & Arabs also called Somalis, Darfur & big parts of Sahel as Berber, it wasn't until the 11th century when slave trade started specifying Zanj as the heavier stock Subsaharans, until recent times Somalis and Fur people (Darfur) were called Berber. Hence Berbera in the horn of Africa is still called as such, legacy of Greek & Arab historians who assigned that term (Somali, Sahel & North African Berber). Berber in general were not Slave stock, except Sahel where early trade took in slaves from that region. Zanj later meant Bantu, but at that time it could have included the Africans of Nubia-Chad as it was new lands to recently arrived Arabian Aghlabids.

The Kitama berber (who were involved heavily in Sicily), along with Kalbid Arabs & Greek Siculo slaves played a major role fighting the Aghlabids in Sicily, Tunisia & eventually establishing the Fatimid caliph, Cairo was taken by an army led by a Sicilian Greek Slave, but that era is two centuries after Bari. By then the slave stock became largely Greek-Siculo, the Kitama tribes were the Berber stock from the highlands west of the Tunisian lowlands domianted by the Aghlabids & other Arabs. Those Kitama berber are what we still call Berber today, they entered sicily as an Army along Aghlabids & later changed alliance to Fatmids & eventually expelled out of Sicily via a local Arab-Siculo-Saqaliba alliance.

Decide whats the proper word to use, for now I left it as African, it should not be Saracen, Arab or Berber as those words mean something else today, also Zanj of Aghlabid times (Sahel African-Nubians), is not the same Zanj of the later slave trade era, (more Bantu). Most the material written about Bari in later times are either religious church mentions or later Muslim accounts both with time specific agendas, not exactly accurate. Droveaxle (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Droveaxle: I understand what you are saying, but you will have to cite some sources to change the page, since reliable sources have been provided for "Berber". What are your sources for the ethnic composition of the Islamic armies operating in Sicily and southern Italy? Srnec (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll need some backup on Talk:Holy Roman Empire. Polish nationalist are a kind of people really hard to explain the truth to.Ernio48 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Please don't revert my editation, which I added infobox into the article, and than you removed. Kingdom of Germany is one of the three kingdoms (latin Tria Regna), which were parts of the early medieval Holy Roman Empire. Kingdom of Italy and Kingdom of Arles (Burgundy) are have also own infoboxes, Germany was the only one that did not, and it is that reason, why I added infobox to Germany, although the informations there are very similar as Holy Roman Empire, but it is not without purpose. If you find and declare, that some informations there are untrue, please delete them or change, it is a better way by my point of view. Dragovit (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no consensus for that article to have an infobox, as is clear from the edit history and the talk page. The page is watched, so you could bring it up again on the talk page and see where it goes. Srnec (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ordos culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Srnec,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I genuinely had no idea there was no such page in that book. To my shame, I didn't check to verify. Just found it in another article and took it for granted. I feel quite embarrassed now. Again, sorry for the bother. Torpilorul (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Srnec, I just noticed these changes in the article on Alfonso VI of León and Castile. In the second paragraph a "why" re Reilly's statement about his age when he died. In the third paragraph a "how" re the charter signed by all the children except Elvira as mentioned by the source used, Sánchez Candeira (he does not elaborate, just says that they signed the document...even if they were too young to sign, this was common practice at that time and almost newborns appear confirming charters). How do I respond to the second one? I can't answer for the first since I don't have Reilly's work. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC) (just think that those paragraphs are very well referenced and it's a shame to have those templates).Reply[reply]

I'm not really sure why Reilly (and Salvador Martínez) have the Crónica de Sahagún saying "setenta y dos" where it clearly says "sesenta y dos" (at least in the Puyol edition). Salvador Martínez even quotes it at length (with setenta). Perhaps there is a reason. I have for now put it in a note.

I think the "how" was just about what action "confirm" entailed. I have replaced the word with "signed". Srnec (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs Timeline: This month in World War I

A tag has been placed on Ƣalib requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Srnec. I performed the technical move that you requested. Now that it's done, could you check the Wikidata entry to see if it looks right to you? I am not sure that all the different Wikipedias are linking to the same person. Is this guy the same as the Pfalzgraf von Lothringen? The entry in Neue Deutsche Biographie is cited, but the body of this article doesn't mention Lothringen. The German Wikipedia calls this guy de:Siegfried I. (Weimar-Orlamünde). On the German Wikipedia, the succession boxes appear to be more complete. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, EdJohnston. Yes, the links look correct. Our article says "count palatine of the Rhineland" (the German says Pfalzgraf bei Rhein), but some sources call the county Lotharingia (Lothringen). Same thing. I made Siegfried I of Weimar-Orlamünde a redirect already. Srnec (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Passaleão incident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it stands it's a copyright violation, containing so far as I can see only unattributed material from other articles. The edit summary "remove redirect" doesn't seem quite accurate, as the editor also added all the current content. Any merger requires sorting out the copying within Wikipedia issue. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to revert, but the original redirect target was wrong (the 'Omani Empire' certainly doesn't begin in 1820 and last until 1970) and the alternative target, Sultanate of Muscat, was a stub. That's the only reason I left it as is and just put a tag on it. What articles is the text from? Srnec (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies, I'm not watching your page. Oh hell, take a look at this edit. He left the source as Beck, which is here but replaced the text with copyright material from here. The new text isn't in Beck at all. Doesn't make me trust the editor. Earwig shows more.[1] Doug Weller talk 12:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps I should have pinged you. Anyways, it seems that the material has been removed. Still, there is a major problem with our coverage. I have no idea why 1820 is the date that separates our Sultanate of Muscat from our Muscat and Oman. The former does not even mention Zanzibar, which presumably was what prodded our new editor into action. I don't know if "Omani Empire" is the best title, and I do not believe three articles are necessary, but currently these two articles are not much help. One day... Srnec (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin Dianaa reverted it back to the redirect due to all the copyright material in it, and the editor who added it was rather unhappy.[2] Doug Weller talk 13:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doge of Venice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doux (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doge of Venice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexios III (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an example of what makes me very nervous about Wikipedia texts. First, that amazing changes are unreviewed. Second, that those are seemingly never reviewed, given for example here that word 'modern' survived 5+ years. Perhaps some of form of adoption of articles needs to be enforced on editors, adopting one from a list of important articles, to check on regularly for egregious encrustations. Thank you for fixing this one. Shenme (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Indy Beetle and Nick-D on the Katangese Gendarmes and India during World War II Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at two important treaties of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.Reply[reply]

Could I have your thoughts on this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that Montarg is correct. Chris Given-Wilson's biography Henry IV (Yale University Press), p. 32, n. 43, says that the child was his sister-in-law's. He cites the same PRO source that Ward, Women of the English Nobility and Gentry, 1066–1500, p. 69, cites. You can read it there; it doesn't name Henry or Mary de Bohun. Given-Wilson considers identifying the 'lady' in the source with Mary a misreading. Given-Wilson directs me to Ian Mortimer, The Fears of Henry IV, app. III, for more information. Mortimer gives the source of the error as Wylie's biography of Henry IV from 1884. Srnec (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you sir! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abu-l-Qasim Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn Qasi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Niebla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pre-colonial Timor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Song Shi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the use of so-called "substandard" manpower in armies Interview: On the Bugle turning 150 (issues that is!) Op-ed: TomStar81 on the collapse of empires at the close of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pedor Manrique's seal, reverse.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lordship of Tyre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibelin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Renaud II de Pons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montignac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of kings of Cimmerian Bosporus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lygdamis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Duke of Salerno.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Satisfies gng

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

1l2l3k (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Srnec, I was wondering if you could help me work out if it was Gaillard II of Durfort, Gaillard III of Durfort or Gaillard IV of Durfort that was Seneschal of Gascony? A Google search has a hit from UK Nation Archives which states Gaillard III of Durfort. This french text also supports Gaillard III. On the Seneschal of Gascony wiki article it is shown as Galhart II de Durfort (Gaillard II)? Any help would be appreciated. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will look into it. Srnec (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Srnec: - Hi, I was wondering whether Gaillard I de Durfort had any other children? I have seen a reference to Marguerite de Durfort who was married to Raimond de Donissan? Not sure if you can confirm this? Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Srnec. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaillard I de Durfort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bordelais (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where in wp:ncs does it say that ship names must be preceded by the definite article "the"? Could you point that out? Because why else would you undo that page move and revert all the subsequent corresponding edits? The only relevant direction I could find at wp:ncs was under "Using ship names in articles";

Do not use the definite article ("the") before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time; e.g., at the beginning of the lead section.

Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong.

Even then, what about that says that removing the definite article "the" is so controversial, that an "RM" is needed? - wolf 01:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thewolfchild: I never said that ship names must be preceded by the definite article, only that the naming convention does not preclude its use. In my opinion, "Capture of the Anne" reads much more naturally and comprehensibly as an article title than "Capture of Anne", wherein the italics are doing a little too much work. If you believe otherwise, RM it and see what others think. You were not wrong to move the article. I am not saying you should have known it required an RM. I'm saying it requires an RM now that I've reverted it. Srnec (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, it was already brought up at WT:MILHIST#Capture of the Anne. I raised the issue of "the" being in the title a week ago. No one spoke up in favour of retaining it, but a couple editors were in favour of removing it, so I did. Now, knowing that wt:milhist is much more highly trafficked than the "Capture of Anne" talk page, and keeping in mind that "the" preceding ship names is regularly removed from numerous ship articles by numerous editors, is that sufficient enough for you to support the move, or do you still want to insist on an RM? - wolf 02:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you already sought a local consensus, why not seek a broader consensus? Srnec (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well considering the guideline clearly states; "Do not use the definite article ("the") ... when introducing a ship for the first time;, and obviously the ship is "introduced" in the article title in this case, I'm wondering why an RM would even be necessary, when we already have a guideline, guiding towards the correct action to take. So are you hoping for a consensus that will go against the guideline? What then? And, are you even confident that there will be a consensus against the move (and the guideline)...? If not, then why insist on this exercise? - wolf 04:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea what the community at large thinks. For that we'd need an RM. I have given my reasons why I think the current title (with "the") is better. In an RM, I would re-state them. Do you think the guideline as interpreted by you has community consensus or not? If it does, then what's the problem with confirming it? I for one do not think the guideline was intended for descriptive titles. For example, we have an FA with the clearly non-guideline title Sinking of the RMS Titanic, while Passengers of the RMS Titanic and Wreck of the RMS Titanic are GAs. Then there's Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, Sinking of the RMS Lusitania and Sinking of the Petrel. To be fair, there is Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse and other articles that conform to the guidelines as you see it. All in all, it isn't clear that your interpretation has consensus. Srnec (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have an odd way of using the word "interpretation". For example, you say you think "the" should be included in the title because "it reads more naturally", that is a personal preference. When I quoted the guidelines, that was a stating a fact. Neither are "interpretations". That said, yes... I am aware that there a some articles that currently violate the guidelines. I was actually about to correct one (another one, actually) when you reverted "Capture of Anne". There are plenty of GA/FA articles that contain mistakes, some were even hoaxes). "Good" and "Featured" do not mean "perfect".

There are reasons why we have these guidelines, one of them being that "Capture of the Anne" looks and sounds incredibly clunky, and it's the reason why we don't have articles titled; "Capture of the Rome", "Capture of the Adolf Eichmann", "Assassination of the Julius Caesar" or "Death of the Osama bin Laden". Having the definite article "the" preceding a name in simply improper, whether it is the name of a person or a boat (which are usually named after people as it is).

But, you seem quite intransigent about the issue, so I will start an RM. But, really, as the page move was supprted by a guideline, I personally think you should self-revert all the changes, then start an RfC on the WP:NCS talk page. (But, I don't see you doing that... unless the RM doesn't go your way.) - wolf 02:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

G'day Srnec. I was wondering whether you could asist me with two questions.

1. Did Gaillard I de Durfort had any other children? I have seen a reference to Marguerite de Durfort who was married to Raimond de Donissan? Not sure if you can confirm this?

2. Is Alexandre (Anissant) de Caumont, Lord of Sainte Bazeille correct spelling or is it Alixandre de Caumont? This Caumont was active during 1346 on the side of the English with Durfort.

Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw the first question earlier, but forgot to respond. No, I have not yet found a source for any other children than Gaillard II. As for the second, my guess is that "Alixandre" is a contemporary spelling, while "Alexandre" is just a regularized modern French spelling. If there is an article at one form, there should be a redirect from the other. (I added a red link to Alixandre de Caumont at Lancaster's chevauchée, based on the spelling in Gribit.) Srnec (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thats ok and thanks, I will review sources and create Alixandre de Caumont soon. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at [[3]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Origin of the Romanians. Thank you.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited De Casibus Virorum Illustrium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constantine III (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Srnec! Thanks for the correction. I just would like to ask, if you have easy access, the pages where you got the dates 28 June and 8 July mentioned in the subsection Supreme commander. The Spanish version of the article mentions, with sources, 15 July as the day that Ghalib announced his victory, but there is no mention to other dates. Cheers!--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maragm (talk · contribs) and Rowanwindwhistler (talk · contribs), maybe you both can help.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huici Miranda (i.e., the Encyclopaedia of Islam article) says: In 364/974 he undertook a carefully prepared expedition against the Castile-Navarre-Leon coalition in which he beat firstly the Christian allies under the walls of Gormaz, then count Garcia Fernandez at Langa, south of the Duero, on 25 Shawwal 364/8 July 975. Makki just puts the "defeats" in "Shawwal 364/June 975". I am not sure where I got the date "28 June" or why I did not cite a source for it, since I cannot find it in Kennedy. Perhaps my reference to Ibn Hayyan was incomplete... because the source I have now added for the date of 28 June (Pick) does indeed cite it to Ibn Hayyan. I can also confirm that Meouak, as per the Spanish Wiki, says that Córdoba received a report about the victories on 15 July. Meouak does not provide details about the victories, however. Srnec (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead and gave you +extendedmover on this account since you post to RM/TR often enough that it would likely be helpful. WP:PAGESWAP is a script that lets you move pages over redirects. If you don't want it, let me know, but I thought I'd save the bureaucracy of my suggesting it and you going to PERM. Standard comments about reading the guidelines for use at WP:PGM and using WP:RM if the move might be controversial. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Srnec (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Makk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meroitic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

Hey there Srnec. Would you care to elaborate [4]? Per Riccioli, [5], the french offensive started on March 23, before that the front was faily static and mostly manned by US troops. If the scope is extended back to August 1944, the article might lose its focus, I feel. Regards --RD47 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine. You may revert if you'd like. Srnec (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, man. So what happens now with Talk:Burma_National_Army#Requested_move_1_January_2019 now that the 7 days have run out? Will it be merged? renamed? Only discussion was a "support" from you, so it seems to be the "winner"...?
--Havsjö (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An admin will come around eventually and close it, although given the low "turnout", they might opt to re-list. Otherwise it will be moved. I can't do it because I'm involved. Once it is moved, the remaining article at Burmese Independence Army can be turned into a redirect with a notice that material has been merged. Srnec (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Second Battle of Dongola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His son, Walter(Gaucher), did not die at Damietta? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He did. It was just that it was already mentioned in the body. I see now that the name was in French there. I have re-added it for clarity. Srnec (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. Not a big deal. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've found curious that after more that ten years we cross again for the same issue (noble enumeration: [6] [7]) I take chance to thank you for a couple of articles (Rotrou III of Perche, Sancho Sánchez) that I translated into es: and that were very helpful for a recent project I've been involved in the Spanish Wikipedia.--FAR (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! It's hard to believe it's been that long. Srnec (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I was thinking of finding a relatively short but highly interesting article (such as Manfred, King of Sicily), buffing up its referencing format in the same way Aristotle, re-checking every cited fact and its connection to the source, etc and running it through FAC. It might be fun. [Although I am concerned I may not have access to those sources]. Thoughts? Interested? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lingzhi2: I could help you with sources, but that's about it. I have too long a list of things I'd like to work on to add more. Srnec (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sorta go back and forth on whether I wanna do anything on any articles at all. But that particular article does look both doable and interesting. I am tempted... if you're not interested, then yes I would appreciate any sources you may have. I have lost all my access to jstor etc etc etc. And if you ever need any help of any kind on any article, feel free to drop me a line. Tks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Im VERY sorry, I wrote response to you before in the talk page, but your original respons got squeezed between my big message and "PS" so I didnt even notice it until now!! Ive edited my response and I apologize for my orginial respons which felt needlessly "aggressive" due to my mistake of not seeing your message... --Havsjö (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Srnec. I think I may have conflated some information about one or two of the Jean's in the article John Harpeden, which may in fact be not the Seneschal of Gascony, but Jean I or Jean II, with John Harpeden being a close relative maybe. Your thoughts and any help would be appreciated. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll see what I can look up. Srnec (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

Hi Srnec,

Ive seen your edits on quite a number of articles on medieval europe and I would just like to ask for your help in searching for citations regarding the birth and death years of a few lesser known Merovingian kings (the rois faineats) since right now quite a few of the dates/sources given are dubious.

Many thanks! FlavusTitus — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlavusTitus (talk • contribs) 09:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I can help you with dates. I've planned to work on the Merovingians for ten years. I've done Chlothar IV and am working on Dagobert II off-wiki. Srnec (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Srnec,

Thank you so much for your help. At the momenti think the sons of Clovis II (Chlothar III, Childeric II, Theuderic III) need some date checking. It has already been referenced that they were born in 652,653 and 651 respectively: but Theuderic was the youngest son and therefore cant be the oldest in terms of birthdate. Do u think there is some sort of mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlavusTitus (talk • contribs) 02:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seems to be some disagreement over whether Childeric or Theuderic was the youngest. Looking at the articles in the Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, which all have birth dates, Theuderic the "middle son" was born c. 651, Childeric the "youngest son" c. 655 and Chlothar the "eldest son" c. 649. He came into power in 664 and had already passed the age of majority at that time. The Liber historiae francorum, however, lists the sons as Chlothar-Cilderic-Theuderic, which is not a guarantee that that was the birth order and not just the order in which they reigned. Fouracre and Gerberding, Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography, 640–720 (Manchester University Press, 1996), actually address the issue head on: "Her three sons were born quickly after her marriage to Clovis: Clothar between 649 and 652, Childeric in 653, and Theuderic in 654. . . These are best guesses; the dates of the birth of Balthild’s children cannot be fixed. The sources disagree about the order: LHF ch. 44 gives the order as Clothar, Childeric and Theuderic, whereas the Passio Leudegarii, ch. 5, reverses Theuderic and Childeric." So there you have it. We do not know the dates or the order, although if you know which order you think more likely you can estimate the dates with some precision (as scholars have done). Srnec (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kansas Bear: Just notifying you of this since you added the existing date of birth citations. Bachrach et al. are fine, of course, but there is disagreement. Srnec (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So which do you think is the best guess? All that i know is Clovis II married in 648 so the earliest that his children could be born would be circa 649. But i cant seem to make any great insight on that one FlavusTitus (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Srnec:, I just wanted to check why you had removed the note at the top of the Fontan (village) page - do you not consider it helpful or is there a hatnote policy that I'm unaware of? Thanks, PeaBrainC (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably the latter. The policy is WP:NOTAMB. The title "Fontan (village)" is not ambiguous. Srnec (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, that's logical. There had been a hatnote there before I changed the page's name but you're right, in seems unnecessary now. There's a new policy to be found every day! PeaBrainC (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Eastern Nagari script, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. They are valid templates, the article relies on a single source, have some questionable unsourced claims and lack the general notability requirements. You didn't even discuss the issues in the talk page, neither you tried to address the issues in the article, yet removing the templates repeatedly. This is disruptive. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are not acting in good faith. If you want the article gone—and you most clearly do—there is an avenue for that. The article already had tags for sourcing. What you are doing is borderline vandalism to an article you simply don't like. You've also removed links to it from everywhere you could. Why not try getting consensus for what you want? Srnec (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Srnec, please could you kindly give a final view on the specific question at the French Mandate RM discussion? It’s gained limited traction with other editors, so your view will help provide clarity. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Srnec, I have found some information in the [Nobiliaire Universel De France] about the Soliers family. Most information starts from Gaillard onwards. I have come across a few genealogical sites which show a number of Rostan/Rostaing's in line and was wondering if I have named this article correctly. I also have found that another Rostan, either son or grandson was Seneschal of Saintonge. Your thoughts? Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Srnec: - Just wondering whether you had missed this question? If you don't have the time to respond, that ok. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There were definitely more than one Rostan de Soler, but it is hard to decide how many individually notable ones, especially with all the variant spellings of both first and last name. I am inclined to think we should disambiguate. The seneschal of Saintonge at least is notable. Srnec (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Reformed orthodox and Reform Orthodox redirects, by just because your article's name has same name with the Eastern Christian reformation movement, doesn't truly and literally means that every redirect page needs to go just one page, while there other articles who still has nearly or mostly same name can't be excluded, has me to think, you may be blocked from editing. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I see that you have changed the target of redirect Chaldee. Please can you help to fix the resulting mis-directed links? I would guess that most of them should go to Aramaic language#Ancient Aramaic (which may merit a suitable redirect) or perhaps Biblical Aramaic, but it really needs a subject expert to sort them out. Thanks, Certes (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I see you've been fixing links to Altaic, but I reverted that change of redirect since it should not redirect to a DAB page, esp. one created just now. I think an RM for the DAB page is in order. Srnec (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

When you created this page back in 2010, you named it Gonzalo García Gudiel. This is the name given on Spanish Wikipedia, but it then immediately states that he appears in contemporary documents as Gonzalo Pétrez Gudiel or just Gonzalo Pérez (he was Gonsalbo Petres, غنصالبه بيطرس, in his native Toledo mozarab Arabic). Do you happen to know where the 'García' comes from? Is this one of those cases where the later church historical tradition came to assign him a name that he himself did not bear? I just added a cite to a recent scholarly biography that refers to him as Gonzalo Pérez Gudiel, and I am thinking we may want to move our page to reflect this. Any thoughts? Agricolae (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't know, but a Google search turns up this. It says that the traditional name, "Gonzalo García Gudiel", dates to the early 16th century and it is being gradually superceded by "Gonzalo Pérez Gudiel". The author says, however, that there is no contemporary evidence for the surname Gudiel. Only "Gonzalo Pérez" is attested in contemporary documents. No objection to a move to Gonzalo Pérez Gudiel, since Gonzalo Pérez is taken. Srnec (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, your link takes me to an unavailable page (Google Books is so quirky), but your summary is consistent with what I suspected to be the case. I think I will move it when I have the time to do the accompanying cleanup. I am not too concerned with the 'Gudiel' - this is routinely used for his family by modern historians (in part because the Toledo Mozarabs used a small enough pool of names that there would be too much confusion if there wasn't some way to distinguish them). I suspect there are a lot more of these clerical names that are based on late tradition rather than contemporary usage - I know that as Bishop of Calahora (1283-6), Martin Garcia's correct name came down to us, but then he went to Astorga and for some reason came to be remembered as Martin Gonzalez, disguising the fact that the two were really the same, while the 1226-1241 bishop of Astorga, remembered as Nuño Fernández, never appears with that patronymic in any contemporary record I have seen. Agricolae (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mabel de Bellême, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Countess of Shrewsbury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grand Siècle. Since you had some involvement with the Grand Siècle redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'd like to thank you for your contribution to the article about WWII in the French Somaliland which I translated in French since, shockingly, we didn't have an article on this topic --> fr:Histoire de la Côte française des Somalis pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Best regards--Kimdime (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De rien ! Srnec (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In 2006 you saw it fit to smear the Germanic people, (both Franks and Bavarians, apparently) as Barbarians in this edit. That term, Greek in origin, was always a smear and never descriptive in any context. The change flew below everyone's radar because it was at the end of a lengthy change set and not mentioned in the summary. I removed it. Wefa (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My usage was clearly in keeping with contemporary usage. Einhard, who calls himself a homo barbarus, labels the peoples of Germania who speak similar languages barbaras. Ian Wood, "The Term ›barbarus‹ in Fifth-, Sixth-, and Seventh-Century Gaul", in Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 41, 4 (2011), 39–50, cites many examples of Germanic peoples calling themselves barbari, such as the Burgundians in their law code. The word was by no means usually or even mainly neutral, but it was certainly not "always a smear and never descriptive in any context". Don't smear me again. Srnec (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wefa, the edit made by Srnec you linked to above was not vandalism. Please remember to assume good faith and give other editors the benefit of the doubt in situations where one's intentions are not 100% blatant, apparent, or known. The manner in which you titled and worded your message here clearly accuses Srnec of vandalism, which we define as edits made with the intention of being deliberately malicious or disruptive to Wikipedia by damaging an article or page. This is clearly not what Srnec did with this edit. Coming to someone with this kind of message will certainly annoy most editors, and even cause some to become frustrated or even angry. Asking Srnec why he added this term with his edit to the article, or even just stating that you disagree with the edit and the addition of the term, is a much better way of expressing your thoughts than calling their edits vandalism. Please keep this in mind when making messages or when communicating with other editors in the future. It'll always generate more positive responses and discussion from others when you do this, and it'll keep yourself from making enemies here. ;-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Celtic languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celtic diaspora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Childeric was referred to as King of the Franks in the Roman army, I believe in Gregory of Tours. There was no specification of types of Franks in any of the sources of this period. Also; while you think Belgica Secunda is unimportant to the story it is actually important because it was on the Romanized side of the Silva Carbonaria, where Gregory of Tours said the Franks had only recently invaded in the time of Childeric. So if you are looking for a way to say what type of Franks they were the Merovingians show several signs of being one who had entered Romanized Gaul. When Clovis conquered the Franks most of the little kingdoms were presumably in would later be Austrasia and later Lotharingia. When Childeric stopped being "king" for while he was exiled (by his Roman superior, who himself became "King of the Franks") to either the area of Tongeren (which is in Austrasia) or else Thuringia. The idea of a leader of foreign troops declaring himself king of a new ethnic group starts with Alaric in this period. This is a subject Guy Halsall has published about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But Gregory is writing later. Did contemporaries regard Childeric as king while he was still a Roman general, or did he proclaim himself king to save his position when Roman authority disappeared? We are talking about the lead, not the body. I think Belgica Secunda, without context, is useless. That the Merovingians were not originally Kings of (all) the Franks is relevant. That is what I think. I don't care if the lead says "Salian", although it should probably mention the Merovingians as law-givers. The only issue I have with the present sentence (They first appear as "Kings of the Franks" in the Roman army of northern Gaul.) is that "they" in this context is just exactly one person. I have Halsall's book (Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West). Srnec (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gregory is one of our [humanity's] best primary sources. Basically all historians of this period have to use him. Assuming we can agree that it is hard to avoid him, I am not intending to argue too hard about Belgica Secunda in the lead, but an alternative to removing is adding/explaining. Concerning "they" maybe we can tweak it, but on the other hand it is not so strange when you recall we are talking about a dynasty not a tribe, and a dynasty can be seen as a series of individuals. Childeric was "their ancestor", meaning the ancestor of the Merovingian dynasty. Clovis and Childeric OTOH both apparently had some authority over Belgica Secunda. Of course though we can not fit everything in the first sentences, and I do not say we should.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Theodosius (son of Maurice), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theodosiopolis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Timbuktu Chronicles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Neither entry in this set index does not directly reference "Timbuktu Chronicles".

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timbuktu Chronicles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timbuktu Chronicles until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Ferdinand the Great.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Srnec, I have a short question about to the edit to the article on the County of Maurienne. Just to clarify, so I don't make anymore mistakes in editing, I guess there is a rule against infoboxes for non- sovereign monarchies/minor titles (for example Maurienne being a lesser title than the concurrent County of Savoy which was the seat of House of Savoy)?

Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Bodilo adjusting his culottes.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wafidiyya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oirat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Charibert II.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Denier Chinon 954, reverse.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

• File:Domnizo.jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Al-Basasiri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nisba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Bertolome Zorzi closeup.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your input at the debate on the titles of the 1947-49 Palestine war pages. This has been an impossible problem in wikipedia for more than a decade, and the subject of multiple discussions. I was too hasty in trying a single-answer vote, and as discussed here with Snowfire, we (Bolter21 and I) have worked to refactor the discussion to build a clearer picture of people’s views. If you could find 10 minutes further for this topic, please review the background of the wider debate at Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war/Name and then add your opinion to the table at Talk:1947–1949_Palestine_war#Vote.

Many thanks, Onceinawhile (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Soldier, northern Italy c.1100.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tuuli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Taifal shield.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing out why I was wrong in my "correction" on the Syrian Fathers page. However, I do truly believe that the name of that page is wrong. Although at a point in time, you would be correct that they would be referred to as Syrian, the modern day academic term for Middle Eastern Christians, specifically those from Mesopotamia and the Levant, are named Syriacs. Would you agree in disagree in renaming that page to Syriac Fathers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirovekîaştiyê (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem is, I don't see many references to "thirteen [or 13] Syriac fathers". I see a few references to "thirteen [13] Assyrian fathers", but I see far more and better sources using "thirteen [13] Syrian fathers". I get that for many this use of the term "Syrian" can be confusing, but it's pretty standard in the literature. The language is always called Syriac, but its native speakers are Syrians. The article "Georgian Christianity, Syriac contacts with" in the Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage uses "Thirteen Syrian Fathers". Srnec (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are correct, Syrian is a term that was used to call these christians, however, in modern day academia and literature, these people are called Syriacs. Refer to:

John A. Shoup, Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia, p. 30

Nicholas Aljeloo, Who Are The Assyrians?

UNPO Assyria

Steven L. Danver, Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues, p. 517

James Minahan, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: A-C, pp. 205-206

Mirovekîaştiyê (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Richautz de Barbesieu, image and text.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Rigaud de Barbezieux.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good improvement on the sourcing, but it currently (and for a long time) is POV. There is another school of scholarly thought that Jimeno was only ever a regent for his nephew. The tricky thing is that the Pamplona dynasties used the royal title for more than just kings - it seems that Sancho Gárces, grandfather of queens Toda and Sancha, used it as regent for the captive Fórtun Gárces, while later Jimeno Sánchez appears with the title even though he was just García Sánchez II's younger brother, so the typical basis for conclusion, appearing as king, doesn't answer the question in this case. Anyhow, I have seen it portrayed both ways, so this is on the 'when I find the time' list. Agricolae (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 928 document that Collins 2012 cites is translated in Collins 1986 and indeed it calls García the creato of Jimeno but does not style him rex. The latter is regnante ... cum his nephew. I read too much into Collins 2012's statement about joint rule. I was not aware of Toda's grandfather or Jimeno Sánchez being styled kings... I will have to look into this. Srnec (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With Sancha's grandfather, it is a bit of a deduction to whom it relates, but there was a man called king Sancho who appears in Pamplona at this time, and Fortun's brother is the obvious Sancho for this to be. One mention appears in the account of al-Udri, who would write that Mutarrif ibn Musa of the Banu Qasi married Velasquita, the daughter of Sancho sahib of Pamplona (sahib is the same term used to describe Inigo Arista and Garcia Iniguez and represented as king in christian sources; it was only with Sancho I that they started to call the Pamplona ruler by the same term used to refer to the Asturian kings, 'tirant', reflecting an acceptance that they were no longer petty rulers within the Cordoban sphere of influence). Ibn Jaldun says the same, but may not be independent of al-Udri. Ibn Hayyan, in describing the same thing, would write that it was the daughter of sahib Garcia of Pamplona. Bearing in mind that both chroniclers were writing centuries later, arguments could be made both ways. The success of Sancho I had such an effect on the al-Andalus psyche that you sometimes see Sancho used as a generic name for a Pamplona leader, yet on the other side, the last king Ibn Hayyan had talked about was Garcia Iniguez, so he may have associated a generic King of Pamplona with him. Then there is a charter from 867, (during Fortun's captivity, status of Garcia Iniguez unknown - the traditional chronology of him is dubious), that refers to Galindo Aznarez of Aragon "Galindo Asinari comes deprecor Sancium regum, generum meum" - king Sancho, my son-in-law. Again, this is during the captivity of Fortun, and it can't pass without notice that his brother Sancho Garces would have been natural regent were his father dead or incapacitated, and that Sancho named his son Aznar. Taken together, it looks like Sancho Garces was being referred to using the royal title. see here

I have seen a paper specifically on the atypical use of the royal title in Pamplona during this period that discusses some examples of its broader use, including by the younger Jimeno, but I can't remember the author. Agricolae (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the time of his marriage to Constance, was Henry called Prince? See latest edit to Constance, Queen of Sicily.--Kansas Bear (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, because he had already been elected and crowned King of the Romans. Srnec (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

A tag has been placed on Byzantine-Latin Wars requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Same as this RfD

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Constantine ✍ 19:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dante Alighieri's. Since you had some involvement with the Dante Alighieri's redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For future reference, it is a breach of Wikipedia etiquette to copy discussions from a user's talk page without their permission to do so. I have replaced the text you lifted from my talk page without my permission with a link to the discussion, which is more than adequate for the purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Can you point me to this rule of etiquette? Thanks. Srnec (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Alfonso II and Sancha of Aragon surrounded by the ladies of their court.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G’day Srnec, hope you have been well. I was wondering if you had any sources for Eustace de Ribemont? Any help in expanding article would be appreciated. Regards Newm30 (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect House of Swabia. Since you had some involvement with the House of Swabia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Coin of Pepin I or II of Aquitaine.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

Hi. Is there really a source for Bisinus being the father of Baderic, Hermanfrid and Berthar?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In short: secondary sources, yes; primary sources, I do not know.
For a proposed family tree of the Thuringian royal family, see here. Jarnut splits Bisinus in two, making the three brothers sons of a the husband of Menia, but not that of Basena. From what I can tell, however, Jarnut's theory is not widely held, since Steuer's article in the same volume treats all three as sons of (the one) Bisinus. I am not sure if there is a primary source that explicitly names the father of the any of the brothers. Their father is not named in the entries in The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Srnec (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Srnec, this thing is tormenting me :D

I am pretty confident that the term Habsburg Empire is used for all the Habsburg realms in the various periods. As the article "Habsburg Monarchy" currently stands (limited to the period 1526-1804) it's a problem if "Habsburg Empire" redirects to it. I mean, all books talk about the Habsburg Empire in reference to its fall in 1918 or when talking about Maximilian I or Charles V. Your point that it's used also as a synonimous is correct, but as "Habsburg Monarchy" currently stands is limited in years and lands (Austria + Danube territories). Perhaps we may redirect "Habsburg Empire" to House of Habsburg? Or maybe create a new article for "Habsburg Empire"? Or maybe I should change Habsburg monarchy? I have no idea what to do but something needs to be done.

You can see what i mean here:

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&biw=360&bih=560&tbm=bks&ei=d6BdXZWoHY-trgSW74XYDA&q=a+history+of+the+Habsburg+Empire&oq=a+history+of+the+Habsburg+Empire&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...1485.6751.0.7043.33.19.0.11.11.0.247.2614.0j11j4.15.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..7.18.1718.3..0j41j30i10k1j33i10k1.0.LApDFOFllr0

For me the best solution remains a disambiguation page saying Habsburg Empire may refer to:

1)domains of the House of Habsburg

2)Habsburg monarchy

3)Austrian empire

4)austria-hungary

Maybe you have other solutions.

Barjimoa (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I put a hatnote at Habsburg Monarchy so that people realize it is restricted to the Austrian lands and excludes the Spanish Habsburgs. Since the only time the Habsburg lands including Spain were all united was under Charles V, it doesn't seem important to me to talk about such a Habsburg Empire. The Spanish and Austrian branches were separate. The term Habsburg Monarchy seems to refer normally to the Austrian branch's lands. These are the only lands after the death of Charles IV. So it seems to me that the hatnote solution is simplest. It is saying: this article is about the one Habsburg monarchy/empire (that endured longest) and here is the other. Srnec (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit on that page is fine! The term Habsburg Monarchy indeed refers mostly just to the Danubian lands and only from 1283 to 1804, when it was suceeded by the Austrian Empire. It was constructed as a concept by historians to find the predecessor state of the Austrian Empire. My issue is that now "Habsburg Empire" redirects ONLY to "Habsburg Monarchy". But "Habsburg Empire" has a larger meaning used extensively for the empire of Charles V and Austria-Hungary. So every time on wiki there is a reference to the division of the [Habsburg empire] in 1556 or the collapse of the [Habsburg empire] in 1918, the [link] points to that article.

I'll post you three links about this, that specifically make the "distinction" (in the sense that one is a part of the other) between the smaller and shorter Habsburg/Danubian Monarchy (ended in 1804 and suceeded by Austrian Empire) and the larger and longer Habsburg Empire (divided in 1556 between Austrian and Spanish branches, and ended with the collapse of Austria-Hungary in 1918).

1) https://books.google.it/books?id=se0wDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+of+Habsburg+Empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmgavI75XkAhXPzaQKHdvaB7EQ6AEIWjAH#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20Habsburg%20Empire&f=false

2) https://books.google.it/books?id=ffZy5tDjaUkC&pg=PA153&dq=atlas+Habsburg+Empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi999Lc8JXkAhXJ4KQKHcZ8D_YQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=atlas%20Habsburg%20Empire&f=false

3) https://books.google.it/books?id=Y2QSBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+of+Habsburg+Empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmgavI75XkAhXPzaQKHdvaB7EQ6AEIPjAD#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20Habsburg%20Empire&f=false

Barjimoa (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think those sources demonstrate any difference between the meaning of the two terms "Habsburg Monarchy" and "Habsburg Empire". But I think I see the problem here. The article Habsburg Monarchy is wrong: that term does not refer exclusively to the period 1526–1804. Not at all. Scholars use it to refer to Austria and Austria-Hungary right down to 1918, and they sometimes use it to refer to the Habsburg lands before 1526 as well. The problem is that page. Srnec (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Your point on Habsburg monarchy is correct and it was one of the points I was making. Just to be even more correct, Habsburg Monarchy is already used since 1282 with the foundations of Erblande (Also thank you for the article, I was making one but yours is better with the maps and all). Now the only issue remaining is that with Habsburg Empire. Because Habsburg Netherlands or Habburg Spain were a part of the Habsburg empire and I'm going to make some changes about it without going in open contrasts with your edits. Perhaps clarifying that Habsburg Monarchy and Empire are also used as synonims. Barjimoa (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jordan (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Jordan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Church of the East, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit, the article is translated from [8]. Thanks you. Xuanfgj (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Srnec for pointing me out... I certainly disagree totally. It is the pushing of the idea there was no resistance after capitulation and ignoring the government-in.exile and Chetniks (Yugoslav Army in Fatherland) did resisted. Not adding Bugaria is something like saying "Oh, they capitulated and Bulgarians just entered to entire Macedonia and entire part of South-eastern Serbia" as if they were not Axis (they clearly were) and if their military movements into Yugoslavia were excused. I totally disagree with peacemaker67 interpretation there, and sources certainly don´t agre with his POV, Bulgaria was Axis and their occupation of territories in Yugoslavia was part of Axis invasion for sure. I think there is twisting of events just to push the idea there was no one resisting, when it clearly was. The fact monarchists were overwelmingly inferior and couldn´t cope with the invasion doesn´t make them Axis or inexistent as wanted to be sugested. FkpCascais (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FkpCascais: That article is devoted to the invasion that ended with the "armistice". Bulgaria did not directly participate in that. Krzak 2006—cited in the article—says explicitly that "neither the Romanian nor Bulgarian units directly participated in the operation." Bulgarian troops moved into Yugoslavia only on 19 April. They were Axis, but so far as I know they faced no organized resistance at the time of their "invasion". We do not have an article on the Bulgarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, although I've got the start of one offline. We need to keep separate things separate and the Bulgarian occupation is a separate thing from the Axis invasion. Srnec (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They basically entered once they had clean terrain, and occupied what they wanted and even made crimes over local population. The distinguishment between forces that participated in the initial invasion with the forces that occupied junks of land right after is so artificial. FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They were Axis allies which occupied huge chunks of Yugoslav land not given to them by any treaty or international convention. Also, they were certainly no peacekeepers, which would be the only remaining option, so... FkpCascais (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the crusades fac is closed ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leiðarvísir og borgarskipan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Martin of Pairis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vladislaus II, Duke and King of Bohemia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beatrice of Burgundy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zdravim Srnec, dakujem ze si mi pripomenul ze prispevky sa maju publikovat len s citatmi. Hi Srnec, thank you for reminding me that contributions should be published with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milostje (talk • contribs) 10:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aromata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maronite Chronicle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Creation and Byzantines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Cercamon.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peninsular War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vitoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abu al-Misk Kafur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abyssinia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed I ended up almost edit warring with you a number of times, which is unfortunate cause I know you honestly try to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Let me just say that I try to do the same, and I simply add informations/sources that I read and analyze. So i don't want you to think that the disagreements we have from time to time are done on purpose. You do a great job! Cheers. Barjimoa (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same, Barjimoa. –Srnec (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Ezra Pound, cropped mug shot.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lihyan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am a long-time editor here and am sitting next to my friend Michael Margaritoff. He is a direct descendant and has family history written by his grandfather some time ago. We know that would not be WP:RS but perhaps you would interested in having a copy of it. --Lyncs (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lyncs, if you want to send me a PDF I'd gladly accept it. Srnec (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ostrich egg. Since you had some involvement with the Ostrich egg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Problem of two emperors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maximilian I (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was surprised to see this - surely the others should be moved instead? The new name is hopeless for the reader (not that this article has many) & thereby breaches the rules. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved the only two exceptions in Category:British Library Syriac manuscripts. I moved them because I was trying to figure out the right title for British Library, Add MS 12142. All the red links at List of Syriac New Testament manuscripts are this way as well. If you look at Category:British Library additional manuscripts and Category:Coptic New Testament manuscripts, for example, you'll see that we have a lot of titles that are pretty opaque: Minuscule 691, Uncial 0271, Huntington MS 17, etc. I have no objection to moving them to more descriptive titles (as I see you are doing), but there's a lot of articles beyond BL Syriac mss. that have the same issue. Should we re-title all of them or only those that are shelf numbers (i.e., leave Minuscule 691 alone)? Srnec (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done most of Category:British Library Syriac manuscripts, in many cases for the second time, if you look at the histories - I did them some years ago, which is why I get cross when they are moved back to unhelpful titles. All of these are of course the work of the dreadful User:Leszek Jańczuk (since he doesn't speak English, one can say what one likes). At least, to those in the know, Minuscule/Uncial 691 tells you what sort of MS it is, which "British Library, Add MS 14462" does not. It's too much work to make all these right, but we should at least stop making things worse. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you insist on redirecting Pescadore to Penghu, you should also tag Pescadore (disambiguation) as ((db-g14)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forty-Nine Martyrs of Scetis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Desert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

The file File:Matilda of Canossa on throne.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ostrich egg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mycenaean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sixth Crusade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Candia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Henry I of Germany and Charles III of France.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Gui d'Ussèl, BnF MS 854, folio 89v.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Miriarch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Troia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Libellus de expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corpus Christi College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you changed the redirect on this to a disambig page, you created over 200 links that now need disambiguating - most of them to the original target Visconti of Milan. Please help to fix them. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been. I've fixed 58 so far, including most that should have pointed to Visconti of Pisa. —Srnec (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. With the help of another editor too, these are now all fixed. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord teamReply[reply]

This you now have a word missing in the first sentence. There are a few more small things listed here such as the spelling of "devestating".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am currently part of a project being done by students at the University of Kent where we are editing and improving the article on the Carolingian Empire. I have been working at trying to fix the Government subsection which almost entirely lacks citations and in doing so have found that much of it is plagiarised from various other sources. I looked into the history of the section and found it was originally created by you in 2007 and has remained largely unchanged since. I was wondering if you are okay with me making large changes to the section and removing all uncited information. I only really have time to make decent improvements upon the Capitals subsection and slightly to the Households subsection but have realised that the Legal systems and Officials subsections need to be removed entirely and rewritten. I would do this but simply do not have the time, how would you feel about the contents being removed of these subsections as their information is not reliable? --CharlieJPerriss (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @CharlieJPerriss: Go ahead.
  As for the Government section at Carolingian Empire, I see that I merged it from Government of the Carolingian Empire in 2016 and that I created that article in 2007. Unfortunately, while I used a good edit summary in 2016, I did not in 2007 (standards were lax then). I created that article by taking material from Charlemagne (see here). That material I originally added when I expanded that article from 15,957 bytes to 48,644 in January 2006 (see here), but with few citations (standards were lax then). I do not believe I plagiarized it. My source may have been Oman's The Dark Ages, which is old but was the only book I had at hand for expanding that article (which I did very quickly because it was way too short). From what source do you think it was plagiarized? Srnec (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found identical sentences in an book Rowena Strittmatter's Our Ancestors: A Journey through the Generations which contains no citations so it’s entirely possible that book plagiarised the wiki page (and it was published in 2016 so I suspect that’s the case) and also an online paper by a guy who I know little about but there are chunks of the article identical to chunks of the paper. Sounds likely these people plagiarised from the wiki article then as neither sources had citations. I’ll refrain from deleting the subsections and finish my draft for the capitals subsection and hope someone comes along and gets some citations on the rest of the gov section. CharlieJPerriss (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CharlieJPerriss: He had NEVER written any articles about the Carolingians. Yet above you accuse him of plagiarizing Wikipedia articles. Please either show just one link of where you saw his work on Carolingians and that paper by him that was supposedly plagiarized or delete that statement of yours. He NEVER did that. Do not accuse people unless you have facts and proof. That was an absolutely baseless and false accusation on your part.Northerneurope (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Northerneurope: Archive.org shows that in November last year academia.edu profile had a paper titled 'Carolingian Empire'. It has since been removed and sadly, the Internet Archive does not include a copy of the paper itself. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CharlieJPerriss: It was a link, provided below, NOT a paper published. A link titled The Carolingian Empire. If one follows it, then it will take them to the online info resource about The Carolingian Empire. Because it is very useful for people who may be interested in such subject. On that resource site there is a section titled "Licenses and Attributions". Lists a lot of links to Wikipedia. Where they got their material from. They provide article specific Wikipedia links. So they had plagiarized then? In what way? They gave licenses and attributions. And he had not plagiarized anything, by providing a link to them. The link is below.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/the-carolingian-dynasty/

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hamites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genesis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you reverted my here regarding the link change to Kingdom of Asturias , I am not sure what you mean with your edit summary "not a justification for changing the terminology everywhere".

After I moved the name from King in the mountain → King asleep in mountain, it is incumbent on me to do post-move clean-up, as per WP:POSTMOVE and change the target link "everywhere". I hope you realize this. And obviously, as I do this, I am changing the "terminology everywhere" to the Stith Thompson standard name as a default. Of course if the article cites a source (or can cite a source) that specifically uses the old phrase, that might be preferred, but I am not running that fact-check on all 50 or whatever instances, as common sense should tell you. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kiyoweap: See WP:NOTBROKEN. Unless "king in the mountain" is an error (and it isn't—it gets more GScholar hits than the new title), then it doesn't need fixing. Also, "king" does not need a capital in running prose. Srnec (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Srnec: As per WP:NOTBROKEN "it is perfectly acceptable to change it to Franklin D. Roosevelt if for some reason it is preferred.." Consistency with Thompson's motif-Index is reason enough.