User talk:Srnec

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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

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]

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]

		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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

		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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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

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

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

@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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

• @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]

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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

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]

@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]

@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.

Raw search for a common phrase like "king in the mountain" is not very illuminating. It could be an archaeologist referring to a tomb or castle of "the king in the mountain". And an archaeologist is not usually considered expert opinion on this comparative studies topic (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS).

I performed a contexted search of the phrases that also mention "Barbarossa", and the clear winner was the one I chose. --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I did in fact misinterpret WP:POSTMOVE, which only required fixing double redirects, and it does state "one should not change inbound links in articles to bypass the redirect".

However, I do have the prerogative to change them anyway, as per the proviso in WP:NOTBROKEN, as already explained.

Now, because of my misinterpretation, I did change three or four instances of piped linked where I shouldn't have as per WP:NOTBROKEN, but it's not worth the bother for me to find them and undoing them now.--Kiyoweap (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, think you might have treated two different RGA citations, both by Neumann, as one? [9]. I am also wondering if you noticed me post two quotes about the same section also this evening? They give a slightly different but still compatible version the way I read it [10] (and they are more recent). Not sure if it is worth using them as well just to give some feeling for the possible range of opinions? Anyway, it is good to have your input so my continuing thanks!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some quick citations from a paper because it was open in my browser from yesterday. I'm sure there is more in Steinacher and Goffart. At some point the names should be listed. The page is not on my watchlist, so I didn't notice the talk page posts. Srnec (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two quotes are from Taylor (an RGA article) and Goffart. I like it that they explain what evidence is available (names). I have a preference for letting our readers know how a position was arrived at, if it is case that the evidence is comprehensible to non-specialists. It often gives a completely different impression as a reader (they were probably Germanic speakers vs. based on their personal names....).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[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

The file File:Raymond Berengar IV of Barcelona in the Liber feudorum maior.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, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Bertolome Zorzi.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, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Stop reverting my editations for no reason, I spent a lot of hours doing that (made thousands of edit points), it's a lot of work. There is no reasons to revert any of these, just see talkpages in the Kingdom of Asturias about flag and coat of arms the consencus proved, the flag of Ramiro I and also cross are fine. Then the belligerents of Reconquista are listed there according by the rules and common appearance ("ridiculous" featured by you is questionable). And finally infobox about Castile-Aragon Union I added there, because in many articles are redirections about to the Catholic monarchs. It is evident that if there was an article on the Castile-Aragon Union, it would be exactly the same-duplicate as the Catholic monarchs. Stop vandalize my work and stalking me or I'll have to send report about you. --Dragovit 00:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have plenty of reasons. You don't know what you're doing, for starters. You never edit with citations to reliable sources (because you don't use any). I'll stop reverting you when you stop editing pages on my watchlist. You can report me anytime. Srnec (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does indeed say "Imperial Vicar of Lombardy", but that does appear to be a lapse for Tuscany. Choess (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		You've made a nice article at Frankish Table of Nations. I was very interested as a reader, and it is very well-structured, allowing it to be quite complete and not dumbed-down. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[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 the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

Hi, wonderful work you're doing, feel free to put up expansions and creations on this page!† Encyclopædius 07:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Thietmar (pilgrim), which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Thietmar (pilgrim), which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Srnec, I just reverted this edit. It was a mirepresentation of "He was said by al-Baladhuri to have been another ‘client’, this time attached to the Arab tribe of the Rabi'a." (Muslims of Medieval Italy p:20). Can you put the article on you watchlist? Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheseusHeLl: It is on my watchlist. That one slipped through because I was unable to check the source when I first saw it and forgot to do so later. Srnec (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Burggraf von Rietenburg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N guidelines.

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. Galendalia (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings - I noticed you are listed as a participant in the Italian military history task force, I'm leaving a message for all participants. I have drafted 3 versions of a navbox covering the Italian resistance 1943-45 which can be seen here (in my sandbox). If you have time, your comments or suggestions on style, content etc, would be welcomed; I've created a section on my talk page. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is great that you found a source for the Persian inscriptions relating to Name of the Goths. Unfortunately I can not access that article. I'd be interested to see how the Germani are described.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, you can access Sprengling's monograph here. It includes the inscription with the Goths. (What I cited was the editio princeps published during wartime.) He translates Gwt W Grmany xštr (p. 7) as "Goth and German Kingdom" (15). He credits Michael Rostovtzeff with the insight that this refers to the Danubian and Rhenish limites (80). In fact, Sprengling translates Grmanyvs and Grmanya (7) as "Germanic limes" and "Germania" (16), respectively. Srnec (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The author seems confident that they were already referring to a Gothic limes. That seems remarkably early? Should we mention that in the Names of the Goths article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Lancaster: That info probably belongs in the Goths article. It is early, but it surely represents the Persians' understanding of the Danubian situation, not the Romans'. If it was Goths that were in the army (and taken prisoner) than that is who the Persians would have associated with the Danube and the land beyond. Note also that the text is in Parthian and Greek, the Persian being illegible in this case. Srnec (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't put it in that article, but that sounds correct. In terms of whether it is justified it depends on whether that article is a good source and whether they say it clearly. It seems uncontroversial if it meets those criteria. Whether or not there was a Gothic limes, it is already fascinating that they were already so important in the military at this time. It is a reminder of how fragmentary all our information is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This claims source that the murder is Dagobert II is unsolved: https://www.therichest.com/shocking/15-shocking-unsolved-murders-from-history/. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source for the claim being made. Srnec (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Srnec, Can you take a look at articles related to Ancient South Arabia (Esimiphaios, Hassan Yuha'min, Dhu Nuwas, Abu Karib, etc). It's full of WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources. Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. I think I could at least fix Esimiphaios quickly. Srnec (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just checking to see if you're still interested in this -TheseusHeLl (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on Esimiphaios, albeit not quickly. Srnec (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it 'Basilicas in the Catholic Church' but the main article is 'Basilica'? It seems that the latter has a solid basis, for example Gargoyle and Castle are singular, though WP:SINGULAR says "classes of objects" can be plural. So why are basilicas plural in the Catholic Church but singular otherwise? Elizium23 (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Basilica in the Catholic Church" is awkward. Basilica is a count noun and the article isn't about just one. Should we move women in the Catholic Church to woman in the Catholic Church? Compare Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology, Insects in literature, Churches in Norway. —Srnec (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, so why not Basilicas? Elizium23 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SINGULAR, like wolf, insect and church (building). This is a WP convention. See also WP:NATURALDIS. —Srnec (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of going in circles, I will accept that at face value.

What is your opinion on these titles?

• Altar in the Catholic Church
• Bishop in the Catholic Church
• Parish in the Catholic Church
• Blessing in the Catholic Church Elizium23 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that #2 is wrong (cf. Bishops in the Church of Scotland) and #4 is okay (although blessings would also work). The other two read awkwardly either way and I am not at all surprised to see that they got their present titles through unilateral moves by an editor with a notoriously bad track record at WP:RM. Those moves should be reversed: Altar (Catholicism) and Parish (Catholic Church) are better (although they should be consistent, pick Catholic Church if you must). These are cases where NATURALDIS—which is what "in the Catholic Church" is—doesn't work. Srnec (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ideas. I have enacted WP:RM discussions as you've suggested. Your input is more than welcome. Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[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 and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

There's a reference to Possekel 2018 in there that should be either Possekel 2018a or Possekel 2018b, could you fix it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reference to Lieu 2010 in there without a corresponding citation. Is the year correct, or is a full citation missing? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in general, you can install Svick's script (see instructions) to get notified automatically of issues like the two I mentioned above. It's a very useful script! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec,How are you? I see you’re the guardian of the Visigoths on Wikipedia. The Visigoths article is very poor on Visigothic architecture and Visigothic goldsmithing, I was thinking of expanding it in the style of Goths, my latest edition according to Andrew Lancaster,What do you think about it?--REKKWINT (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need my permission. You only need WP:RS. Srnec (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec: Thank you for appreciating my reversion to Adeimantas .Regarding the book, I think you are right, the point of view is not neutral, maybe it exalts too much the value of the Visigoths when they started the Reconquest with Pelayo or Pelagius,I'm sorry that this has been a problem.

What I tried to do was give a new edition to this Their king, Roderic, and many members of their governing elite were killed, and their kingdom rapidly collapsed. we'd have to keep the paragraph from ending abruptly and sadly with respect to the Visigoths, which we both admire. Not the whole Visigothic kingdom collapsed, Septimania, Asturias, regions around the Pyrenees remained, apart from Theudmir, which is in my opinion a submission to the Muslims. Greetings--REKKWINT (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a polite thank you for your comments on the ACR of this one. Tbh I took a moribund article, updated it and wondered how far it would go in that state. The answer is clearly to GAR but not much further without serious work. I don't have the time, energy or inclination to give due attention to your valid comments (sorry fot that) so will be stepping back from this article. Someone, sometime maybe will pick this up again. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, I've added content to visigoths regarding architecture and goldsmithing, I'm asking you to review it and modify it if you don't think it's right.--REKKWINT (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[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 naval siege of Japan in 1945

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		Hello Srnec! I don't think I've ever given you a barnstar, which is really remiss of me. Thanks for your hard and conscientious work on so many medieval figures, events, and chronicles. It is always a joy to discover them and read them (and often exclaiming "finally someone wrote on this!" and even more often "first time I ever read of this!"). Keep safe, and keep it up! Constantine ✍ 19:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cplakidas! Glad to see you're back, by the way. Srnec (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you do know that these titles were decided at RM, given you took part in it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that they were referred to as Hugh Hastings I, II and III? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you have cited a source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source I added at Hugh III, for one. I opened an RM where I mention more. Srnec (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[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 on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

Hey Srnec, An editor is misrepresenting a source (Genealogy and Knowledge in Muslim Societies: Understanding the Past, Chapter 4: Berber Leadership and Genealogical Legitimacy:The Almoravid Case) in Yusuf Ibn Tashfin and he's pushing a claim that just because some medieval chroniclers and genealogists fabricated this claims, "It's written in his autobiography that he claims descent from Himyar which according Wikipedia guidelines is worthy of being added to the page" (I don't know where he's getting that Ibn Tashfin wrote something about himself). The historian (Helena de Felipe) is just discussing the views of the medieval authors who propagated (or criticized i.e. Ibn Hazm and Ibn Khaldun) this myth and she clearly views it as a myth like all modern secondary sources. If you have time by chance, please can you take a look at these edits. Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, any points about this discussion (Yusuf ibn Tashfin biography). I think representing these myths in the article gives them weight. These myths are unanimously rejected by reliable secondary sources. What do you think? -TheseusHeLl (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheseusHeLl: I take it you think my edit leaves too much? I think if contemporaries used the nisba al-Himyari then it is worth mentioning it and where it comes from. I don't think we need to mention it for any other reason. Perhaps add "Modern scholarship does not support any Berber–Yemeni link." Srnec (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Srnec, thank you for the changes. Could you check my edit to see if there is anything to add or to remove. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Srnec, I would say "preter" means "except" here, so someone was devastating all of Moravia, except the castles and fortified places. Sounds like Mongols I bet! Adam Bishop (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Art from the Coptic Diocese of Faras certainly counts as Coptic art. Even now Faras is only just over the border, not to mention under the water. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is all Nubian art then also Coptic art? The Coptic Encyclopedia has a separate article on Nubian church art (incl. Faras), but notes the strong Coptic influence. I would have less of a problem with art from Faras being in the article if it were presented clearly as Nubian, but the article does not mention Nubia. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mazices, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cyrene.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back in December 2017 you made this edit to the article Hunald II. In it you included two short citations:

• Bachrach 2013, pp. 115–22.
• Bachrach 1974, p. 13.

Unfortunatly you only included the 2013 book in the list of long citations. Do you still have the detail of the 1974 volume to hand? -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Searching on Wikipedia for the short inline citation brought me to the article Waiofar which is a related article and one that you have also edited. In that there is a long citation:

*Bachrach, Bernard (1974). "Military Organization in Aquitaine under the Early Carolingians". Speculum. 49 (1): 1–33. doi:10.2307/2856549. JSTOR 2856549. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Is that the long citation missing from Hunald II? -- PBS (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be, yes. That citation is probably held over from the other article, since it is not citing anything Hunald-specific. It isn't really adequate for the first fact, though, since it does not explicitly mention the division on Pippin's death. That first citation [6] can be eliminated, since the following McKitterick citation covers that fact. Thanks, Srnec (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I came to the article to improve links to Wikisource using "Cite EB1911". I have no information or knowledge of the people who are subject to the biographies. I just noticed that one of the short citation was not supported by a long one. I have pasted the above citation into the article. You clearly have far more knowledge about the subjects of the Biographies, so any improvements I will leave to you to do. -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Italianised. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Italianised until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Srnec!! How are you?

This file is also available in Commons, File:Ordono1Asturias.jpg. I don't know much about images politics in English Wikipedia, so I don't know how to deal with it.

Thanks for your job. Greetings! --Estevoaei (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[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: Nick-D on 1945

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philip II (bishop of Châlons), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homage.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bubal hartebeest

added a link pointing to Buffalo

Mongol incursions in the Holy Roman Empire

added a link pointing to Falconer

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Story of Ahikar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old Slavonic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason for the misunderstanding in the Kingdom of Arles article is your English perception of the word "Successor" and "Succeeded by". It is possible that the successors of the Kingdom of Arles were the Comtat Venaissin and the Principality of Orange, as you explained in the editing summary, but there is a word "Succeeded by" in the infobox, not "Successors", and as I understand it, the word "Succeeded by" includes all the states that followed him, at least that is the practice in many other articles about former countries. I didn't notice your concept anywhere. Medieval states are completely different from modern states of the 20th century. It's strange that only such two petty states would follow a state as large as Arelat/Burgundy and none of them is the County of Burgundy. It's debatable which "Successors" they are and it will evoke further disputes. I see an analogy in Lower Lotharingia and the Duchy of Swabia, they also disintegrated into many states. So please stick to the established habit. --Dragovit (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the Kingdom of Arles never "disintegrated" in the way this suggests. Parts of it were gradually annexed by France, Savoy was formally detached from it by Charles IV and finally the whole thing came under de facto French control in 1378, save for the Franche-Comté. France, the Savoyard state, Switzerland: these I suppose are successor states. The county of Burgundy could be added back, too, since it remained with the Empire after the Kingdom of Arles had ceased to be (but unlike Orange and the Venaissin it was never an independent state). I do not see the logic of the longer list you added. Srnec (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Tartar Relation, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Tartar Relation, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that u had created a few articles about foreign military involvements in Vietnam in the 19th century such as the Bombardment of Tourane (1856). I wish u could do research and create an article about the 1845 US bombardment of Da Nang. There are quite few sources for it online, and I found one of those http://www.vvaw.org/about/warhistory.php. 152.133.16.22 (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my area, but we do need an article on it so we'll see. Srnec (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed ref=harv from Henry Raspe. Is the ref = harv no longer working properly? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that it was no longer needed, that it was now default. Srnec (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's nice to know! Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What! harv is no longer needed!? Is this a new thing? -TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I changed the image of Pelagious' infobox with a painting of Luis de Madrazo y Kuntz, since there is already an image of the Liber testamentorum explaining where Pelayo is represented but it was changed again with a cropped version of an already explained image. The use of paintings can be seen in Alfonso I of Asturias, Fruela I of Asturias, Aurelius of Asturias.
Do you have a specific reason of this re-change? (AlessCastiglione (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Because a 19th-century imaginary image is useless. It tell us nothing at all about the king. It illustrates nothing. It is pure decoration and all such images are interchangeable. You could plop the Alfonso I one on the Pelagius page and vice versa. It wouldn't matter. At least the Liber testamentorum image comes from an initial that depicts an historical event is part of text about Pelagius. I have restored the images of statues in those articles that were recently changed because I think the statues are less misleading, but I would have no problem with no portrait image at all. Srnec (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A depiction of him 470 years after his death doesn't really illustrate that much even if it depicts an historical event, why would you have a cropped image rather than a quality entire art of a person, both being "useless". Moreover, the page of Jesus Christ (featured and protected) has a Bizantine representation 1300 years after his death, no depiction of any literature event that he appeared; rather than early portraits of him. So why has a cropped and repeated image more weight than a non-historical-illustration for a person with no contemporary art? (AlessCastiglione (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Why does a 19th-century painting have more weight than a 12th-century one for a person with no contemporary art? I gave you reasons, but you seem to think that the later image must be a kind of default. I would have no problem using the whole manuscript page as the lead image rather than a crop of it, for what it's worth. Srnec (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point. But if those reasons doesn't seem to match a featured and protected article about one of the most important people in two milleania, why would they fit in this one? There's more distinction in a painting than in a medieval illustration. Also, why are statues less misleading? People are going to see the medieval depiction on the "Reign" section anyway. (AlessCastiglione (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

But Jesus is different. There is a centuries long tradition of his portrayal. And his portrayal itself is meaningful (in Christianity). There is nothing comparable for Pelagius. There are no great options. I still don't see an argument for the change you made. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Srnec (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[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 Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bernat Oliver

added a link pointing to Benedict XIII

Donation of Pepin

added a link pointing to Patrician

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 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 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jean de Montagu, is the Lucien Merlet source unreliable?

• Biette de Cassinel, is the Tracy Adams & Christine Adams source unreliable?

Feel free to tell me if you consider the other sources in those two articles are reliable or unreliable.

Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adams & Adams obviously RS. Merlet is old. The key is to check if he is cited by recent RS as a source of information. He is, so he is OK. Srnec (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thank you very much. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, not sure if you saw my reply on the page to you as it may have gotten lost in a see of text [Here]. Just wanted to makes sure as I think the 2017 version should be an option in the RfC. Even if it means fixing it up a bit which I am willing to help do. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is too late for that. Best to let it run its course. I tend to agree with Kiengir's latest opinion that the rough consensus seems to be for something like the status quo, perhaps without the footnotes. Nobody other than you has suggested adding more countries to the infobox. Srnec (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though Kiengir stated they are fine with either the version I proposed or the current version. Another editor I believe suggested adding other entities as well. So I don’t think I’m alone. But I agree it is late, as people already begun voting. Also sorry for not taking this to the main talk page to begin with. That wasn’t right. Even if I didn’t name drop. Again I apologize for that. It wasn’t right of me. I get frustrated at times a feel ad wits end. But no excuse really. OyMosby (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites "Freed 2010" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Or is it a typo and should be "Freed 2016"? Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how it should be looking like. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better than the other way. But yes that side template is too long for most articles. Srnec (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is less wasted space. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your new solution seems fine. Thanks. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between July and September 2020. Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Judeo-Latin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Wexler.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[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 on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

I appreciate your effort to create Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Jerusalem, The presidency of Jerusalem bishop is Archbishop, the church website is proved that, the other fact is St. Magdalene Church is not established church of Syrian Church, John of Würzburg(1160) Description of the Holy Land states that. Palmer (1991) link is not available in Article Eldhose ^Talk 03:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac Orthodox Church is not acquired St. Mark Monastery from coptic, Barsoum (2003), p. 566 says Mark the Evangelist and the virgin Monastery both located in Jerusalem, St. Mark is known as the monastery of Syrians, but article wrongly makes. Eldhose ^Talk 04:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am disagree with about St. Magdalene church My fact is the site was the house of Simon the Leper, who invited Jesus to supper(with in of John of Wurzburg (1160-1170 AD)) But they argue that the temple was founded in the fifth century.

And also, Iam added about history, Patriarch name used(yet didn't have patriarchal rank), Bishop name, split of chalcedon and non chalcedon in jerusalem church(With the help of Theodosius of Jerusalem Article) and their patriarch's, Jerusalem church in early centuries,List of Churches... etc.

The point of St. Mark Monastey is that the evidence and explanation they gave did not match, so they believed it was a false story, and then another evidence was discovered and completed.

Don't forget to include these things. So don't revert and Correct the mistakes as much as you can. Thank you. Eldhose ^Talk 03:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide citations that back your claim that the Tripartite Pact did not create the Axis, nor lead to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which did not lead the USA to join the war with the Allies?... - Aboudaqn (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide citations, not me. But see Talk:Axis_powers#The_Tripartite_Pact_=/=_The_Axis and the section preceding it for a discussion of the Tripartite vs Axis issue. Srnec (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your outstanding efforts. Keep up the good work! - LouisAragon (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diego, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diadochus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[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 & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

Hi Srnec, you recently moved the page Shahi, making it into a disambiguation page. As a result, over 60 pages now link to a disambiguation page (Special:WhatLinksHere/Shahi), which is of course not intended. Are you aware of this? It would be good to fix these links soon! Lennart97 (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some. It had redirected to shah, which does not use the word or discuss the Shahi dynasties. So the links were always wrong. I may fix more. Srnec (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! I didn't realise they were already wrong. I'll see if I can fix some too. Lennart97 (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cynegius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have seen you have deleted one of my recent Edits. And no it’s not vandalism. Barbaria stretched from Aswan (south eygpt) to Malao (Somali land) it also contained South Eritrea and Djibouti. All of the people that live in the area are identified as indigenous cushites. Such as Oromo,Somali,Afar,Harla,Beja. The periplus mentions them as Former Nubas and the Greeks used two terms Barbarians and Aethiopian Aethipian was a term used by Greeks to describe Nubas (cushites). Alwaqidi notes that the Dominant Group were Hamites and if we went further he called them cushites that would Inhabit Eastetn Ethiopia Northern Somalia and Djibouti. And these peoples would have been Proto cushites not the cushites we know as today 😊 Thanks. TBftf (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Cushitic ≠ Cushitic

In any case, please do not add original research like you did when you wrote "We can confirm this is Wrong..." Srnec (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nisab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nisba.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Babai the Great, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gregory.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[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 war in Ukraine

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ʿAmadiyya. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 14#ʿAmadiyya until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. DMacks (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fakhr al-Din ibn al-Sa'ati, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your continued service adding to Wikipedia throughout 2020. - Cdjp1 (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walter VI, Count of Brienne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crusader.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Natalis soli invicto!
		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) 15:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you redlinking "Fragmenta Vaticana" on Aufidia (gens)? It's not clear to me which Vatican fragment it's referring to, since the only one I have in my database is from Diodorus Siculus, who's two centuries too early to have anything to say about the person for whom this is cited. But even if we figured it out, it's highly unlikely ever to link to anything with this title; if it were Diodorus Siculus, for example, he'd be the one linked, not "Fragmenta Vaticana", which would merely describe which part of Diodorus Siculus it's in. This might be a reference to a fragment of Cassius Dio—I have a note with him in my database mentioning the "Fragmenta Peiresciana", so there may be other fragments. But either way, I don't see the point in redlinking these words, since they'll probably never link to anything. P Aculeius (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: See Fragmenta Vaticana. Not a redlink anymore. I am aware of the Diodorus fragments—I did not add redlinks where those fragments were intended—but I took "Fragmenta Vaticana" to be clear enough as a proper name for the legal palimpsest because an article under that title appears in Wiley's Encyclopedia of Ancient History and in Brill's New Pauly. The old Pauly has it under "Fragmenta iuris Vaticana", which I suppose could be the title if you think the current title is too unclear. The German and Italian Wikis, however, use the simple two-word title, while the French uses "Fragmenta juris Romani Vaticana". Srnec (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Well, that clears up the mystery of what this refers to. I was under the impression that it was a historical work—although I didn't see Aufidius mentioned in the likely chapter of Cassius Dio. There may be several fragmenta Vaticana, but I'm sure your hatnote is sufficient to send people to the one from Diodorus Siculus, and if others turn up under that title, they can be dealt with as needed. Sorry for the confusion! P Aculeius (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Srnec, I've seen some of your work, Very good stuff. I also see that you have some interest in articles Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite and Euphemia and the Goth. If you like, I can move them, and suppress the redirects so that you can recreate the articles your own way. I have no more interest in them, and I can't imagine myself expanding them either. You're a better editor than me, so your versions would most likely be way better than the current versions I made. Interested? Jerm (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerm, thanks for the kind words. No need to do that, however. I can just edit them where they are. No pressure this way. Srnec (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Srnec--I'm getting pressure to cut this article into pieces (which I have now done twice), which isn't as easy as it looks. At any rate, I could use your help in chiming in. Someone went so far as to actually split the article (badly) yesterday and rename it to something that it isn't. I reversed it, but am tired of wasting my time dealing with this. So whatever you can do would be appreciated. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert of Auvergne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montmorin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe we ever edit warred. Why did you say you knew that I wouldn’t come to the talk page and follow BPD in good faith? I began writing the same time you did but you beat me to the punch. So to speak. Are we on bad terms from the past or something? If I did anything in the past that upset or insulted you I apologize. I’m not looking to make enemies but allies in making Wikipedia better.OyMosby (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you would violate BRD because you've done it before on that same page. On 25–26 Nov you were bold, got reverted and just reverted again. The same cycle repeated on 28–29 Nov. You should know that the current wording of "Armistice and surrender" has two sentence fragments masquerading as sentences. Srnec (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate BRD this time so please enough. I went to the talk page right after I reverted. You know that and the diffs prove it. Why this hostility? I’m not pulling tricks. But surely you can see starting the conversation like that was uncalled for as it just leads to antagonization and had it been some of the other editors it would have exploded. I want to work with not against.

Are you saying the wording is still bad? As I said I made the mistake of not proofreading the whole flow. Editing on my phone in spare time on the go. I went to the talk page after my revert as you can see we were writing at the same time. I also engaged on the talk page in November after my “bold” edits that turned out to have some validity in multiple ethnicities.

I edit warred which was hot headed and dumb of me. But it was not just me partaking in the edit war. And the other editor had vested interest in only having Croats originally until Peacemaker slammed the Tomasevich book on the table as I tried. Another editor tried in the past to fix the issue but only to be met with no answers. You however were cordial in the talk on November and I respected and appreciated that.

Again I apologize for past behavior. I was reverted with no explanation while I was following the sources. It was multi ethnic. But after I reverted I went to the talk page to ask and explain what the problem was, hence not completely BRD violation but I get your point and cynicism. And look I said I apologize for hot headed behavior of the past. I should know better but my nerves get the best of me sometimes which is no excuse.

I am trying to reach out an olive branch again to you Srnec. Can we be on good terms this point on? I don’t hold grudges as I already forgot November. And surely you can see my edits are meant in good faith. Using RS to back edits, trying to improve. I don’t mean to cause you problems or waste your time. Also, side question, is Srnec a slavic name or have a specific meaning? OyMosby (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec is indeed a Croatian name, as in Aleksandar Srnec (no known relation). Srnec (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Linea dell'Impero poster.jpg, 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. Wikiacc (¶) 08:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Wikiacc (¶) 08:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Linea dell'Impero poster.jpg, 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.

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, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Srnec, can you please help in writing articles about Khayran as-Saqlabí (Q3816411), Zuhayr as-Saqlabí (Q3816351) and Sunqur al-Ashqar (Q13141797). Any initiative would be much appreciated. 211.105.112.181 (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it. Srnec (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why you keep reverting me without leaving an explanation? I'm trying to clear out the backlog at Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and usually nobody gives me any trouble about it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You figured it out. He should be listed by Audric, not Vilar. I do not understand why we need a listas parameter here. Srnec (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are recipient no. 2513 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[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 Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

Hallo Srnec, thank you for your message. Please see here for the policy: MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. Gryffindor (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fraxinetum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Embrun.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? Moses and his Ethiopian wife Zipporah. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done! It was the McGrath paper that I found in my bookmarks that made me think it could use an article. Only question I have is, is the name Zipporah usually associated with the artwork? I have always thought the Midianite Zipporah and the Kushite wife were obviously different women, but I know that was probably not the dominant interpretation when Jordaens painted it. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good and relevant point. I assumed that the title given at [11] etc was more or less original, but now I checked McGrath's cite #4, and this seems far from certain. Some rewriting is in order. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[12] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liberian Catalogue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your numerous articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Krakkos submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

• I nominate Srnec to be this weeks Editor of the Week. An active editor for more than fifteen years, Srnec has a broad knowledge on a number of topics, particularly Late Antiquity and the early history of Christianity. He has created thousands of high-quality articles and made a monumental contribution to our coverage on these topics. Through his editing experience and broad knowledge, Srnec is also a frequent voice of reason in complex discussions. Krakkos (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Srnec

Editor of the Week for the week beginning February 7, 2021

15 year Veteran Editor with broad knowledge on many topics. Has created thousands of high-quality articles and made a monumental contribution to our coverage on these topics. Also a welcome and frequent voice of reason in complex discussions.

Recognized for

his editing experience and broad knowledge

Notable work(s)

Late Antiquity and History of Christianity

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Srnec! I only noticed that you'd just won this award by coincidence, but I've seen your name around quite a lot and it's clear to me that you've done a lot of work on Wikipedia. Thankyou and well done! Alarichall (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Much appreciated. Srnec (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: Thank you for the nomination. Sincerely appreciated! Srnec (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Srnec. This one was very well deserved! Krakkos (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about you, but that RM for Louis XI of France & Louis XII, being ruled as a consensus to move & then moved? is a tad quick & odd. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Pseudo-Simeon

added a link pointing to Old Slavonic

William Grassus

added a link pointing to Bonifacio

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You added "According to the Aztecs" about 5 years ago. I have never really paid much attention to the article and only after someone complained on its talk page today saying " there isnt even academic concensus if the toltec empire existed, let alone some of the wacky borders this article insinuates. tbh, i would in favor of just blowing this thing up and starting over." Are you interested? I have little time myself but will mention this at a couple of Wikiprojects. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good place to start. I would probably model our article off of that to start. I suspect that a lot of material could be moved to Tula (Mesoamerican site). Srnec (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but the pdf wasn't there. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try this or this. It's Mike Smith's article in Wiley's Encyclopedia of Empire. Srnec (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[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: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

Because you have been editing on the page of Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Sa'd ibn Mardanish, can you please explain to me where I can find the Arabic symbol ' (before Abd and between Sa'd). I've been looking at the special characters of Arabic and Arabic extended, but I can not find it.

Many thanks. Peters01 (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Below the editing window is a scroll-down menu that by default says "Insert". Click it and select "Arabic". There is a set of symbols commonly used in transliteration there, including the half-rings for hamza and ayin. That is where I get it. Srnec (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicholas of Methone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Kamateros.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello, you deleted my article on Fraxinetum, what is the reason? Sarazxs123 (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarazxs123: See the article talk page. Srnec (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leiðarvísir og borgarskipan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ascalon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Flag of Albania regarding an issue with which you may be interested in and since I've known you to be fair even where we were on opposing sides --Havsjö (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[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 female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. And please, instead of ignoring the regular "bold, revert, discuss" process, take part in the discussion at WT:MILHIST. Dragovit 09:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection? Agricolae (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Srnec, I have started an RfC on the article Goths that may be of interest to you, see Talk:Goths#RfC.--Berig (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am only curious about one comment here. Is it really not asking a bit much that either a person who lived in 6th Italy had enough geographic knowledge of northern Scandinavia to know that it was connected to the mainland and not really an island, or he was unreliable?--Berig (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Berig: I think it goes back to where he got his information. If the Goths once lived in Scandinavia, do you think they thought it was an island then? Do you think their oral traditions called it an island? There's no question that Jordanes is not completely reliable. A geographical imprecision does not render his whole account worthless, but I don't think we should just slide over it either. Especially since the page as it stands cites Jordanes several times but never gives any reasons for distrusting him, beyond admitting that some scholars don't. Srnec (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, he is not completely reliable. Who is? IMO, the Getica is a horrible mish-mash of different traditions. What I react to is using the reference to Scandinavia as an "island" to make the point that he is unreliable. If I refer to e.g. Orel's "A Handbook of Germanic Etymology" 2003:4 (I could refer to several here) he says *aʒwjō or *axwjō meaning "island" is behind -avia in Scandinavia so the Germanic understanding of Scandinavia as an "island" remains in its very name. Add to this the fact that the Germanic concept of "island" was not the modern cartographic concept that we are used to today. The root *aʒwjō or *axwjō remains in names for places that have never been islands because the Germanic concept of "island" was vague and could also refer to "land next to water" as in Oium (see also Orel 2003:4).--Berig (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the article doesn't make any points per se. It just accurately describes Scandza as Jordanes describes it. Other than citing scholars disputing Jordanes' accuracy, the article nowhere has anything specific to say about any error in his work. All it does is leave the gloss "(Scandinavia)" after "island of Scandza". We could go a lot further than this exposing Jordanes as a mish-mash! And your etymology even offers a possible avenue for enhancing Jordanes' reliability. As I suggested in the RFC, I think expanding material on the origins of the Goths in another article is the best way forward. There is lots to say pro and con the various positions and it would be helpful to interested readers to lay it out. Srnec (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec recently it appears that you constantly keep deleteing sourced info on the Barbaria article and I just want to recommend that you use the Talk page before you make any edits. I would like to see what you would have to say about this situation since I haven’t had the chance to ask you. Cheers Rashicy (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec it seems that you have returned the Mora article to the draft space not even 24 hours before it was published. You said that the article wasn’t well sourced and I want to know how and why, the reviewing administrator said otherwise, and it makes me confused, this article is well referenced and I provided at least one source for each paragraph. I don’t see what’s wrong hope you can respond soon..... Rashicy (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, draftifying that was definitely the right call. I would have done that last night, but it was a bit too late at night for me. @Rashicy: It is not a lack of sources as such, but the sources are impossible to track down and verify because the references don't tell us enough about the sources. In future, you should submit your drafts for review through the AfC process (see WP:AFC) and not simply ask an editor to review it for you. --bonadea contributions talk 07:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean, the references didn’t have that much info, I Did this so it would be more simple for example one of the sourcers I used was Pankhurst Ethiopian borderlands essays, I just noted Pankhurst 43 because many people are familiar with the Borderlands essays and it was one of his most populast books . I hope you can see where I’m coming from Rashicy (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

use == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. their is currently a discussion at wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard editwarring regarding an issue in which you are involved. Thanks Rashicy (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec hope your doing well, it has came to my attention that you have nominated my article Mora for a speedy deletion and I have since contested your request. You went on to delete my article the Muzzafarid dynasty and replaced with redirect article. Please remove your edits and return the article, this is not helping at all, you continued to remove the heading of the Muzzafarid article to Muzzafarid (Somalia). Please refrain from vadanlsing articles and following me, hope you find this: Rashicy (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: Rashicy (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rashicy: You cannot just title articles whatever you like. You appear to have made up the term "Muzzafarid Empire". I fixed it. You also can't write multiple articles on the same topic, hence the disappearance of Mora Kingdom and Muzaffer dynasty. If you don't want your articles edited by others, don't edit Wikipedia. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I don’t want people editing articles I have created so please don’t assume. You however keep on reverting my edits without listening. The Muzzafarid Empire was a Empire at its zenith it expanded from Mogadishu to Sofala. Muktar Haji notes it was a Empire. I created a second version of the Mora article because you declined it so I made more improvements. I never asked for all this trouble you brought it, the first version of the Mora article should be deleted I agree but somehow after it was declined another admin reviewed it and accepted it. You continued to delete my article Muzzafarid dynasty for no such reason. Please refrain from what you’re doing. @Srnec: Rashicy (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their are multiple articles that focus on the sale topic such as the Galluweger dynasty,Ajuran Empire and many others. Please bring back the Muzzafar dynasty article Rashicy (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Srnec, I am requesting to have an article created by you. Would you be willing to? Thanks. Jerm (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is it? Srnec (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Apocalypse of John. Jerm (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. You've written this type of article before. Any reason you don't want to do this one? Srnec (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find one source that discusses the text:[13], but I didn't like the way the source presented the information. To me, the source looked like clutter, and it just felt overwhelming reading it. Jerm (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will see what I can do. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Started. I will add some more tomorrow, since I have not finished Court's chapter. Srnec (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it looks good. Didn’t know there was a third apocalypse. I wonder if there’s a fourth one. Jerm (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you still have this material handy any more, but a decade-plus back you did a major expansion of the article now entitled Imperator totius Hispaniae that included a statement about Ramiro II citing Garcia Gallo, ""Although he apparently avoided the imperial style himself, his subjects and his successor did not." In something I just came across by Justiniano Rodriguez, he says: "Con análoga estimación imperial se designa a Ramiro II «dominante populo christianorum in fide católica», «rex imperadori», «gloriosi orthodoxi políente regimine», «rex Hispanice» y otrs expresiones análogas, como «sub imperio dominissimi régis Ranimiri»."(all these are cited to primary documents: p. 162 here) Was Garcia Gallo splitting hairs and dismissing these as near-misses or by 'his subjects' and not Ramiro directly? or has Rodriguez simply found more material than Garcia Gallo was aware of? Without knowing exactly what Garcia Gallo's perspective was, I am not sure how to incorporate the Rodriguez material (if at all). Agricolae (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found a print copy quite easily, but (oddly) it lacks the endnotes. Here is what he says on p. 204: De Ramiro II no se conserva ningún documento real en que él utilice el título de emperador. Pero se conoce uno, de 940, en el que en la fecha se alude con ese dictado: "Regnante domino et mperatore nostro". En otro, del 952, referente a Ordoño III, que luego se citará, éste se llama "prolis domini Ranimiri imperatoris". Otras veces, en la fecha de documentos privados, se le designa como rex magnus: en el 930, "regnante Ranimiro principe et regis magni in Legione". De igual forma aluden a él las genealogías que acompañan a la Crónica Najerense: "Ranimirus rex Magnus". Srnec (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Rodriguez has material Garcia Gallo seemingly was unaware of, but because he does not provide further context beyond the titular phases themselves, it is impossible to tell without tracking them all down individually whether these fall under Garcia Gallo's 'used by others but not by himself' framework. Not sure how best to address this. Agricolae (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sofala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buzi River.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, if one of the recently editing accounts at Barbaria (East Africa) turns out to be yet another sockpuppet of an already-blocked user, please notify me and I'll protect the page. I currently lack an oversight and evidence, but this all is very strange. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[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 Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

Hey Srnec hope your doing well. I just want to ask what is your goal, You keep in reverting my edits and deleting articles I’ve created, why are you targeting me if I did something wrong I’m sorry but please stop. @Srnec: Rashicy (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to make the encyclopedia better. To put it bluntly, your articles are not very good. You created no less than three identical articles on the so-called 'Mora kingdom'—two in articlespace plus a draft. So we have an article titled Kingdom of Mora and not a single source uses that term. You made it up. Your citations are so incomplete that it's almost impossible to check. I believe you overinterpret them and give them a 'spin' of your own, SYNTHing where necessary. If you think this situation can last, you are mistaken. Srnec (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Tiptoft, 1st Earl of Worcester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord High Constable.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reviewed the nomination - all fine, but have just left a query in the review for you to look at before giving it the final tick. DeCausa (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted Second Apocalypse of John to prep area 1, but I removed Last Judgment from the hook because that isn't in the article. I can re-add it to the hook once it's added to the article. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: Done. Srnec (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added it back. SL93 (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the misspelled word "apperance" in the original quote? In the same paragraph with the correct spelling "appearance"? Shenme (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a typo: correct seen at [14] Shenme (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,914 views (538.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Cross of Gisulf, 7th century.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sennecaster (What now?) 16:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[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 and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Digenes Akritas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Slavic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Syrian Orthodox Church. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 27#Syrian Orthodox Church until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As you may see, I tried to make List of colonial governors of Ruanda-Urundi look like List of colonial governors of the Congo Free State and Belgian Congo as much as possible. I did it for the sake of consistency, among other reasons, as the two articles are quite connected with each other. If you find anything that you think should be changed/remodeled, please feel free to do it; any help would be appreciated. Also, help would be needed on the issue of references for the Ruanda-Urundi article. —Sundostund (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion of these sources added to Walter III of Châtillon?

• Du Chesne, André (1621). Histoire de la maison de Chastillon sur Marne.
• Despréaux, Simien (1824). Histoire de la maison Chastillon-Chastillon. Paris: Goujon et Larnault.
• d'Arbois de Jubainville, Henri (1865). Histoire des ducs et comtes de Champagne, tomes 4a et 4b. Paris: Librairie Auguste Durand.
• Rémy, Ange (1881). Histoire de Châtillon-sur-Marne. Reims: Imprimerie E. Bugg, successeur de A. Lagarde.
• Petit, Ernest (1889). Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la race capétienne, tome 3. Dijon: Imprimerie Darantière.

--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: They are all old. Not necessarily unreliable, but not prima facie reliable either. The test would be: do modern sources still cite them as reliable for basic facts. If so, then I would accept them for basic facts, since it is not necessarily the case that there are more modern sources that go into the same depth on each member of the House of Châtillon. I can't say off the top of my head if I have ever used these sources, but I would not use Du Chesne (just too old). Still, more recent sources would always be preferable where available. At Walter III, the newer source should be restored without necessarily deleting the information in the article. Srnec (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two of the Remy citations did not support the sentence they referenced, so I removed them and the Foundation sources. I re-added the Pollock sources, but I am unable to access some of those sources to verify they support the sentences in question. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a template for Siege of Smyrna. Why you reverted my edit? KaradumanMareşal (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because not every article needs an infobox and I don't think this one benefits from it. You can explain on the talk page why you think it improves the article. Srnec (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Kingdom of Arles" is anachronistic until the 12th century. The name of that kingdom before the 12th century was Kingdom of Burgundy. Boubloub

But not "Kingdom of Burgundy-Arles". Smooshing together the two names does not create a less anachronistic name. Moreover, redirects do not need fixing. If you feel strongly, go thru WP:RM. Srnec (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM does encourage moves to a better title. I believe Burgundy-Arles best encapsulates the complexity of the case. In any event it cannot be Arles alone, since that name only appeared late. By contrast, the name Kingdom of Burgundy remained valid (alongside Arles) after the 12th century. I have now changed to "Kingdom of Burgundy (from 933)" which is clunkier but clearly not anachronistic.

When an entity changes names over time, we do not create separate articles just because of name changes. And since an article can only have one title, we have to choose. Thus, we choose Kingdom of Navarre, although before the 12th century it was Kingdom of Pamplona. We choose Holy Roman Empire, although that term also only originates in the 12th century. Terms like Carolingian Empire and Byzantine Empire are totally anachronistic. In this case, I think Kingdom of Arles is the most elegant solution. Any attempt to use Kingdom of Burgundy will be clunky. We could perhaps split up the article into two: Kingdom of Burgundy (933–1032) and Kingdom of Burgundy (Holy Roman Empire). The latter would parallel the Italian article. What do you think? I'm inclined to think that Kingdom of Arles is still the most elegant solution. Srnec (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed solution of splitting between pre- and post-1032 strikes me as sensible, even though a simple renaming would work as well in my opinion. Arles was not the capital of the kingdom during much of its period of historical relevance, thus not elegant - I don't know of historians (with the possible exception of German ones) who refer to the pre-12th-century polity as Arles.

There are a fair number of references to the Kingdom of Arles in 933 or 1032 ([15][16]). Either a split or a rename ought to be discussed on the article talk page. Srnec (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you notify the article talk page of the move review discussion/request. SPECIFICO talk 09:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your frustrations are very understandable but FWIW, here is how I see the recent RFCs on Goths:

• Berig asked 17:20, 31 March 2021 if we should focus less on "controversial origin stories like Jordanes' Getica", and more on "archaeological, linguistic and contemporaneous historical evidence". The closer felt there was a "clear and strong preference for secondary sources and modern scholarship" but this does not really help much. NOTE: More importantly although you voted "No", everyone reads your posts as "no" to any implication of the article needing MORE, and an argument that Goths should not handle the main discussion of Gothic origins, which means this whole discussion should be reduced. Your remarks got a lot of positive feedback in this and other RFCs which closers also noted, and have become a main theme of agreement...
• I asked 08:03, 1 April 2021 whether the article "should primarily focus upon the Goths described by Roman historians from the third century". Again we got a diversion to a "clear (in fact, nearly unanimous) consensus in the discussion below that the article should focus on Goths as described in modern scholarship" which did not help much. However, there was once again a lot of discussion about your idea.
• Krakkos, citing the previous two RFCs, made a draft, "in which the Prehistory, Early history and Movement towards the Black Sea sections are simplified and merged into a single Origins and early history section". The closer noted "there is a clear consensus to substantially trim these sections. The specific text proposed, however, has drawn significant objections and a consensus to implement it as-is is not apparent in this discussion." It should be noted that this was a strange RFC because Krakkos presented several different new drafts during discussion. In your rejection of the last version you stated that the shortened version should be "more straightforward (and even shorter)".
• So the new RFC I started actually goes back to your original post in a sense, because it created a consensus. It is a new draft trying to match your suggestions, which seem to me to have clear backing from other editors. The summary is shorter, and it tries to be more balanced and neutral.
• I have been guessing that either you just misunderstood the direction the discussion went (which is very much based on your ideas) or perhaps you are concerned with some specific side issue, such as the question of which should be the main article or articles. Currently we have Origin stories of the Goths, Wielbark culture, Chernyakhov culture and Gutones. And I questioned your idea that we need a new one. But, to be clear, I am open to the new article idea also. I just see it as a separate (and less difficult) discussion?

I feel you are a key voice of reason on that article's talk page and I think you put your finger on the best way forward. Clearly a lot of people agree.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance that I can successfully beg you to have a bit of a look at the proposed draft, and give whatever feedback you deem appropriate? You commented on the previous draft of Krakkos, and the talk page certainly has not rushed since then because the RFC template even expired now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Andrew Lancaster, but I have lost all interest in that page at this time.

As an aside, if you are a Wikiquote editor, you may want to see this. Srnec (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's disappointing (both topics). You gained substantial support for your idea on Goths, you gave feedback on the drafts of others which were supposedly based on your proposal, and now I've done the work of trying to make something more truly based on your idea, and the aspects others found attractive. IMHO it would have been an important step forward, and it is IMHO now ready to go. Honestly, it is the worst possible moment to pull out, and not even look at the draft. Concerning Wikiquotes I don't look at it often, but this work is similar to the hit pieces about living academics found all over Wikipedia, and written by the same editor. Am I the only editor willing to work on that type of problem? I can do very little on my own. It seems good editors such as yourself tend to keep away from stuff when it becomes awkward, but the result is that awkward stuff becomes more common.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Celtic languages. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. In this case, it so happens that the IP is correct. Your repeated removal of Cornish contradicts the article, and the sources. You have not provided any reason for the removal despite removing it several times already. Please stop. Jeppiz (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry to bother you but would be interested in your view. I've BOLDly moved Ælfsige (bishop of St Cuthbert) to Ælfsige (Bishop of Lindisfarne) because the Bishop of St Cuthbert bit sounded wrong. However, reflecting on it and the page history and looking at some other titles, I wonder if I should have really moved it to Ælfsige (bishop of Lindisfarne), especially given that you had already moved it from capped to l/c here. Is there MOS or convention on this Bishop of Muswell Hill vs bishop of Muswell Hill thing? I would be happy to comply if I understood what was going on! Please advise. With thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, yes, per MOS:JOBTITLES and all other similar articles, the "bishop" should be lower case. Elizium23 (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium is right. Go lower case, same as you would if you used generic "the bishop of Lindisfarne" in a sentence. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is depressing: I'm sorry, it looks like I have been pretty stupid, and I've since seen evidence – minor so far – that the Bishop of St Cuthbert bit might have been less wrong than I had thought. So I am kind of wishing I had left well alone! Anyway, I have for now moved it to the l/c bishop, despite my confused/elderly feeling of Not Quite Getting Why™ and if I can ever motivate myself to it I will start on its Talk page about the title ... or I may just slink off and pretend I was never there and hope that someone less clueless than me will intervene. Gah! I am just reminding myself about the favoured surfacing material for the Road To Hell. Sorry, best to all, thanks Srnec and Elizium23, cheers DBaK (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: after messing around with Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship it's nice to see an editor doing the thing that we're supposed to be doing. BTW I got your ping because I wrote up Ian N. Wood a long time ago--I guess that article needs updating. I don't think I ever met him, but I think I met Fred Orton at some conference on the Bewcastle Cross; time is running out and every other week I open my email to find a scholar whose work I studied has died. The most recent one was Janneke Raaijmakers--but she was taken long, long before her time. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given how challenging it can be to really find solid biographical referencing about people from 900 years ago at the best of times, do you really think it's possible to draw an absolutely clean and unambiguous distinction between Arab-by-ethnicity and Arabic-by-language in that period? Sure, in the 21st century it's very possible for a person to be one but not the other — but how likely do you think it is that we could consistently and reliably reference a very sharp and indisputable distinction for people who lived in the 1100s? Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Well, it is easy to know if a poet wrote in Arabic unless their poetry is entirely lost. Even then, the least we probably know is the language of it. As for ethnicity, it is a bit more complicated. For example, the poet in question here had a Black African mother and was quite dark-skinned, but his father was an Arab (meaning, had an Arab tribal genealogy) and therefore so too was his son. Given the propensity of Arabic sources for genealogy 900 years ago, I think it is actually pretty normal to know if someone was or could claim to be an Arab (i.e., belong to a tribe). Arab identity has gotten murkier with time, not clearer. As an side, there is a genre of literature from that time, Shu'ubiyya, that is entirely non-Arabs writing in Arabic about "Arab privilege". Srnec (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[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 on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

I have gone ahead and started a new article: Origin of the Goths. I hope it helps future discussion and work on this topic. At this stage I have not tried to combine this with Origin stories of the Goths, as I think you proposed, and this is partly based on my reading of the frustrated remarks of various other editors about Jordanes. However this new article will probably need a bit extra information about Jordanes. I just need to think about to do it without distracting from modern scholarship, while still making it clear that he influences modern scholarship.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to merge this right away with "Origin stories", especially since there is really only one origin story (Jordanes'). Calling the Goths Getae does not really count as a "story". While I support a separate article, I am not really sure consensus at Talk:Goths does. Still, if nobody else is interested in talking... perhaps you should ask the admin who imposed restrictions on you and Krakkos to lift or lighten them. Myself, I just don't really know what the community wants. There is no consensus version of early Gothic history. Srnec (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and so we should report that there is no consensus? That your proposal to trim the Origins sections and move detailed discussion elsewhere created a new consensus was accepted by Krakkos and the closing admin for the RFC where you mentioned it. Krakkos has already proposed three drafts for the new trimmed version. (So my new draft, draft number 4, should be understood in that context. Would still be great if you looked at it.)

At first sight, I disagree with your idea to move quickly to a merge, although I am open to more discussion on that idea. I personally feel there are two separable topics, and editors want them separated. I'd like to give this approach a real try. Also, Jordanes was not the only classical account, so that merge could swamp discussion of the others. Instead, both articles can best be expanded I think.

A practical reason that this separation seems important, looking at discussions on Goths, is that the RFCs showed that some editors feel strongly that we need to distinguish what modern scholars think, from the totality of what Jordanes wrote. It seems they feel that when there is a lot of information about the unreliability of Jordanes, it gives a supposedly false impression that there is no other type of evidence which supposedly confirms parts of what he said in some way. So this new article focuses not so much on the details of everything Jordanes wrote, but, to use the WP term, his continuing "legacy" and the aspects of his narrative which still form the working assumptions of some Scandinavian linguists, some archaeologists, etc. It is relatively distinct from the topic of what he really wrote I think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What accounts besides Jordanes do you have in mind? Srnec (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ones discussed in Origin stories of the Goths.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elishaʿ bar Quzbaye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Book of Kings.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, you've been converting Germanii to Germani with the comment that it's a spelling correction. That's not the case, both spelling are acceptable and appear in the literature. so I've reverted some of your changes under WP:BRD and happy to discuss under Talk:Germanic peoples. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: can you give an example of any such literature? I've tried google and my impression is that this is Srnec was correct to remove this word. The only publications where I find this spelling are in Slavic texts, but Slavic has its own system of grammatical inflexions. In English, when a Latin word is borrowed we normally use the Nominative forms [17].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: Germanii implies a singular Germanius. The only Germanii I can find in the literature are the Carmanians of Persia. Srnec (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lancaster Ngram Viewer which only records English language sources shows that Germanii, while clearly less common than Germani, is used frequently enough to suggest it is a valid spelling, so there is no reason to delete every occurrence of it as if it were a mistake. It might be worth making this clear in the article on Germanic peoples where I see Srnec has removed it even as an alternative spelling. You're right that the mass of references is cluttered by Slavic texts or book references, but there are enough English language examples to make the point that the spelling is valid.

Srnec. Well just as one example among many, Ring, Watson and Schellinger (2013) state that "By the time the Romans first crossed the Rhine, in 38 BC, the Celtic people known to them as the Germanii were living on its banks." And I think you're onto something: a singular Germanius would probably have been (one) Germanic person, so Germanii would make entire sense as the plural. Either way the Romans used Germanii alongside Rugii, Bavarii and countless other tribes that use the Latin "-ii" ending. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bermicourt, why mention a tool like Ngram without any numbers or examples? Some of the examples are likely to be the Persian tribe? Can you actually cite one good history source in English, or any Latin source, which uses "Germanii" or "Germanius" to refer to the Germanic peoples of continental Europe? OTOH we do not use every spelling variant of course, because almost any spelling mistake possible has been made somewhere. Why would we use this one which is obviously extremely uncommon? I am not sure why you find this spelling so important. You can try searching relevant Latin works on https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ and site:penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/ . I only find those Persians.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've copied this discussion to Talk:Germanic peoples as I think this is a topic that other interested editors make wish to comment on. Hope that's okay. Bermicourt (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, on the article Croatian Naval Legion#Operational history, there is an erroneous date « 39 September » (introduced in this edit), which propagated to other wikis. Would you be able to provide the proper date? Thanks in advance. Od1n (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

30 September ([18]). Fixed. Thanks, Srnec (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed too on the French Wikipedia :-) Od1n (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[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 and Nick-D on World War I

You wouldn't happen to have a better source for the ancestral background of said philosopher would you? There was been a thing going on there for a while.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the EI2, both him and his grandfather, and neither says anything about him other than "Spanish". It seems to be a pattern: the IEP and SEP likewise have nothing on his ancestry. The article "Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd (Averroes) and his exile to Lucena" refers to "his lack of an Arab (or Berber) tribal nisba" and says he was "accused" of being of Jewish descent. It cites "Explicit cruelty, implicit compassion: Judaism, forced conversions and the genealogy of the Banū Rushd". From that article, I gather that we know nothing with confidence of Averroes' genealogy back further than his famous grandfather. All sources for that are late and not really reliable. They suggest that Averroes' genealogy could be traced back to the late 9th or early 10th century in Spain, perhaps suggesting a conversion around that time. "Rushd" is a non-Arab name. Both articles think the accusation of Jewish ancestry might have a basis in fact and that the conversion may have been more recent (11th century). It seems to me on the basis of this brief research that there is probably no sound basis for calling him anything other than Andalusi. Srnec (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best indeed to remove all such reference unless someone finds something from a really strong source. I'll post something there quoting your summary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a draft somewhere in my userspace (User:RandomCanadian/sandbox5) where I tried to combine the two existing articles on the same thing (before being thrown off by the walls of text on the talk page, and being once again distracted by other issues), with the idea that this would allow for a better summary while preventing further inflation of article size. It's still a work in progress, and my ideas on the topic might not quite be the same as yours, but I wouldn't mind a helping hand. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. Srnec (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laterculus Veronensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hellespontus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[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 Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

You are being invited to discuss the question of which flag to use for Austria-Hungary's infobox because you participated in this last discussion back in 2019. The discussion can be found at Talk:Austria-Hungary#RfC: National flags vs Civil Ensign White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 18:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have your finger on the pulse of this article. It looks like a current editor might be a former editor. You have previously made allegations of sockpuppetry. Maybe you want to take a look. Thanks 10mmsocket (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited French moralists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maxim.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. 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! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to File:Honoriani Taifali iuniores shield pattern.svg which is hosted on Commons

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. Salavat (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 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 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[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 and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. 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 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox I added to the Duchy of Merania page was reverted with the label "'country'?" and I wanted to ask what was wrong with the infobox? If it was the fact that it was using the former country template I could use the subdivision template or any other that you think better suits the polity. Or if it's just you don't believe that an infobox would be beneficial or doesn't suit the article at this time then I will back off. Though I personally believe an infobox would benefit almost every article on political entities, especially those with moderate to substantial amount of text where an infobox could help easily give basic information.

It is that I just you don't believe an infobox would be beneficial or suit the article at this time. For example, it stated three times that the duchy began in 1152 and ended 1248, information which is in the first sentence. It lists two of the five dukes, although a "list of dukes" is right there in the table of contents. I think the lead just needs beefing up. I may do it when I finally incorporate Banić 2020 and Banić 2021 (not listed in the references yet) as I plan to. Srnec (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rete A.O.I..PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[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 on British conscription and German warship raiders

Have you see this? And this?

Sourced by this website. Is this source reliable? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a local legend? Probably. For history? No. The local legend may be relevant at Edigna, but not at Henry I of France or Anne of Kiev. We could get a better source. I notice that

Bogomoletz, Wladimir V. (2005). "Anna of Kiev: An Enigmatic Capetian Queen of the Eleventh Century—A Reassessment of Biographical Sources". French History. 19 (3): 299–323. doi:10.1093/fh/cri032.

mentions a "persistent tradition" that "Emma or Edigna" was Henry and Anne's daughter. Unfortunately, I have no idea how late this tradition is or how reliable. Srnec (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yoḥannan bar Zoʿbi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conjunction.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[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 Canadian junior officers in World War II

Thank you very much for creating this article! --Norden1990 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		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) 15:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[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 on the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Notitia Galliarum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dax.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is to inform you that I have added the Gallican RfC to two other categories. Veverve (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Summa Coloniensis, start.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[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 on the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[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 on World War II in Europe

		The Special Barnstar
		For fixing my erroneous move at Battle off Hormuz (1625). Thank you! Quid Est Squid (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that this seems to have piqued someone else's interest. I have barely scratched the surface of what I think is a fascinating subject. Where else can you find a pig quoting from the Quran? Just wondering if you have any knowledge of Arabic (took me long enuf to find out what the Romanised Arabic title was, and I still have no clue what it is in actual Arabic!)---there's probably a lot more material written in that. Also I seem to recall that an English translation by Goodman had already been published in the 1970s, if that's noteworthy. This defo has potential to be a GA at least. Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not know Arabic. I do have a copy of the Laytner and Bridge adaptation. If there is an earlier translation, I think that's noteworthy. Srnec (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[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 on Hitler as a military leader

Hello! I am quite doubtful this Zdeslav of Sternberg is identical with that nobleman, who married to a member of the Csák clan from Hungary. In fact, it was Zdeslav's namesake grandson (per Czech wiki). Their son Štěpán ze Šternberka (in Hungarian, "Stephen the Czech") became a heir of the Csák domain for a brief time in 1321, after the death of Matthew III Csák. --Norden1990 (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Norden1990: I admit that I made the connection solely on the basis of probability. Matthew I Csák, an adult by 1235, is said to have had a daughter who married Zdeslav, who had a young son in 1253. It seems less likely to me that Matthew's daughter married the Zdeslav of 1281–1322. Still, I have reverted some of my links and changed others to point to the Czech Wiki. I think the exact relationship of the younger Zdeslav's wife to the various member's of the Csák family needs checking. Srnec (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Second French intervention in Mexico infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 11,679 views (486.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note you had participated in the discussion on the Talk:List of wars between Russia and Ukraine move and/or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russo-Ukrainian Wars. There is currently a similar discussion ongoing at Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation where your input may be valuable. Kind regards. 79.155.36.178 (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[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 military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

An undiscussed move of this wasn't a good idea. The article is about a church feast day, & normally has the "Saint". For God's sake don't start taking this line with paintings. Birth of John the Baptist is an event, Nativity of Saint John the Baptist something else. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself used "Nativity of John the Baptist", which sounds more normal for me. Perhaps its a regional thing, or perhaps its subject-matter dependent. The history books seem to prefer no "saint" for the feast day. Srnec (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Srnec, glad to hear from you. What I have documented is that Rodrigo Vázquez, son of count Vasco (Velasco) Sánchez and Urraca Viegas, died in 1198 in the battle of Ervas Tenras, and married Toda Palazín (daughter of Palacín de Alagón) who most likely accompanied Dulce de Aragón when she married Sancho I of Portugal. I only have two daughters from this marriage: María (married to Ximeno de Urrea) and Teresa Rodríguez de Barbosa (married to Gómez Suárez de Tougues). One of the sources is this article by Sottomayor Pizarro, p. 222], also see notes 33 and 34, p. 231. Hope this helps. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maragm! Looks like Suero is unrelated. I will add this information to the Velasco page. Srnec (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a list for some articles that still have no pages. Hence, I would like to ask if you can please have a look at it and help to turn all the reds to blues if possible. Regards. Alas2022 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I will have a look. Srnec (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, just wanted to explain my edit. Considering it had been listed as Tripartite Signers per yours and another user’s recommendation, and has been that way for 5 years, I figured some sort of consensus or discussion was warranted as was always asked whenever major changes are made. Why is this time different however. Tripart seemed like a neutral way to describe states that weren’t necessarily all powers but definitely allies of the main Axis powers. For example when a user wanted to add a sub category for puppet states that were acis aligned, they were required consensus and reverted by a single editor. I mean “Other Axis States” makes sense. Better than powers. Just wondering about the change of edit requirements. Cheers and thanks for your edit. OyMosby (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was based on past discussions, especially in Archive 10. I think consensus was to avoid "Tripartite", "co-belligerent" and "puppet" designations in the infobox and to distinguish only between the "major" Axis powers and the rest. I'm not sure there was consensus on exactly what to call the rest beyond "other". Srnec (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Storia de Mahometh at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[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 a World War II summit and the American space program

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If "Hungaro-Ukrainian War" is unknown in English why did you moved article without updaing lead, infobox and Wikidata? Don't move pages without updating lead, infobox and Wikidata. Eurohunter (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I wanted to ask your reasoning for creating a WP:D Werner of Steusslingen with just one category? Can a hatnote suffice? Bruxton (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created it to head off any attempt to move the blue-linked article to Werner of Steusslingen on the mistaken assumption that it was unambiguous. The German Wiki has a dab page, so I assumed that there isn't a primary topic. Since the other page is red-linked, a hatnote won't work right now. Srnec (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I am new to on NPP and did not want to make a mistake. Bruxton (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, at the Aqsa discussion, I left you a message at 08:31, 14 June 2022. If you have time would you mind letting me know the answer? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Srnec. I and another editor have replied. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, thanks again for all your efforts here. I believe consensus has developed around some form of disambiguation, whilst the Qibli proposal won’t gain consensus. I would be interested in your thoughts on what solution might gain enough consensus to pass at this point. Thanks again. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[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 four recent works

Hi Srnec, you recently undid edits I did on pages for governors of Al-Andalus governors, such as Hudhayfa_ibn_al-Ahwas_al-Qaysi. I had added infoboxes to the pages of governors, and you undid those edits because of the information in the infoboxes being redundant given that there was a succession box at the bottom of the page that had that information. My perspective was that the infoboxes can be populated with information that the succession box can't be, and I wanted to be consistent with other pages for Al-Andalus governors. Geopony (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the three infoboxes I removed were the only al-Andalus governors with infoboxes. I was trying to be consistent. On short articles, I think the infoboxes are a distraction. Also, please respect WP:BRD. Srnec (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: why are you removing infoboxes, I may ask? I did not find a valid reason for that removal. Thought of discussion on your talk itself since this removal is not focused on single article. Logosx127 (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think infoboxes are useful on short articles in general (outside a few exceptional topic areas). I think most infoboxes are not well designed to handle historical complexity and uncertainty. I do not go around removing infoboxes, but I will often remove them from pages on my watchlist if I think they are being added pro forma. For example, the infobox you added to Elias of Merv contains no information not in the first sentence. Srnec (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, I am not opposing all those removals at the same time. Some of them are almost okay for me and yes, I agree with most of your reply. But you seem to be blindly reverting all what I do there, and I smell bad faith on me from your part. Or is that some sort of an article ownership? Anyway I don't mean any harm to the article, I assure. But I prefer to keep infoboxes wherever they are effective in giving a nutshell about the article. Especially in cases where the subject of bio is also a saint or have successor/predecessor or previous post. In case of Elias of Merv, the infobox was indeed somewhat unnecessary. But that not the case always. And I have intentions to expand those articles too.Logosx127 (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, if you look at maphrian you will see I have lots of reverts in the article history but I haven't touched your edits. Srnec (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: so you have all these articles in your watchlist? Well and good. I have restored the infobox in Gregory of Kashkar and don't remove that. That indeed carries some information. And I am okay with the other two for now. Logosx127 (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles I create go on my watchlist by default and I rarely remove them. I will leave Gregory of Kashkar for now, since I have long planned to come back to that article and expand it. But please don't give orders ("don't remove that"). Srnec (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[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 Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

Why did you moved page Marquess of la Romana to Marquis of La Romana? Marquess and Marquis is the same, or not? Bye. 88.5.40.33 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like earl, marquess is generally reserved for British usage. Marquis is more common for continental nobility (in English). Srnec (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Castle of Bénauges.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. mattbr 12:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[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 the Falklands War

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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 current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. If you wish to open up an RFC on papal intros or an RM on papal bios or both, concerning whether or not to use 'Pope'? I won't object. But for now. let's try to keep consistency as much as possible across those 265 bios, while acknowledging that St. Peter gets treated differently. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would just like to point this out regarding your re-opening of the Requested Move on the Armeniai-Azerbaijani War page, per WP:CR:

"Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. [...] if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion." DJ (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does not apply to RMs. The closure rule for them is An involved editor, admin or otherwise, may not close a move request (with one exception, detailed below). See WP:RMCLOSE. —Srnec (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, WP:RMCLOSE also states "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure." DJ (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 10,436 views (434.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[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 Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

Srnec, what's the problem with that book? It's published by Princeton... Drmies (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Nothing wrong with the book per se, but it is about the Black Death and mentions Fraxinetum in passing in the prologue. It is being used to claim that Fraxinetum was an "emirate" and that it extended into Switzerland. I do not see that we need to introduce this source for this (questionable) information in the lead. Ballan, for example, calls it "an Islamic frontier state", but never calls it an emirate. Likewise, he does not corroborate Fraxinetum's control extending into Switzerland, although they certainly raided there. Srnec (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec! With regard to the user you've been having trouble with at Fraxinetum, you may want to see this. Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Anamur. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[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: Meet some of the project coordinators

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Titanic Republic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 22#Titanic Republic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Al Mursi or Mursi is the same. For example Al Ganzouri or Ganzouri. Panam2014 (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[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 on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

I wonder how you chose the name of this page you moved - it seems dubious. Just a few days ago the article said it was formed in 1916: after all, it celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2016. StAnselm (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote: "This article is about the Christian Church formed in 1911." I've no idea what date makes more sense or if there is an altogether better way to disambiguate. I only know that the old title was bad. Srnec (talk)

I have moved it to Apostolic Church (1916 denomination). StAnselm (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note you reverted my unsourced change to the article. Yes, my change is unsourced. But if you look at the third last sentence in the last paragraph of the article, you will see why I made the change. This feat earned him the honorific by which he is now known, "the victor" (al-muzaffar) replacing "sword of the dynasty" (sayf al-dawla). How can he already be called "the victor" (al-muzaffar) when the article says later that that title was awarded later in his life? Chewings72 (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chewings72: I checked the Makki citation and what he says is reinforcing him with a powerful army headed by his son, 'Abd al-Malik, who was given the title "al-Muzaffar". I have simply removed the statement in the article since it isn't entirely clear whether Makki means that this was the occasion for giving him that title or that this was the title by which he came to be known. Obviously I read it the first way the first time, but in light of the other source that reading can't stand. Srnec (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.  :) Chewings72 (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to know that while I'd prefer returning the Buddha page to it's previous namespace, I take no issue with your trying to improve the situation as it exists. If by any of my statements I sounded like I was annoyed or even in disagreement with your request for move, please accept my apology and understand that my interest is always in creating and maintaining the world's largest reference volume. Please count on me as an ally and if I can ever be of assistance, you know the number... BusterD (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[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 British Territorials in India Interview: On turning 200 (issues of the Bugle!) Review essay: Coordinators' 2022 reading list Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

I am a bit worried about this Peter being confused with the similarly-named theologian. The two appear already to have been conflated on French Wikipedia.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 11:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thoughtfortheday: Do what you think is best. I am rather strict with WP:NAMB myself, but I won't fight over it. Many cases are judgement calls about what readers who don't know Wikipedia's inner workings will infer from our choices. Srnec (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have redirected List of Visigothic Kings, it back at A list of Visigothic Kings. I had earlier redirected the second article, but DilutedHereticX has restored it. Thoighy you might want to know. I'm going to redirect the recreated article again, but I'm sure it will just be restored again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And again A list of Emperors, although it could have been speedied by the time you see this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: It was. The user in question has exactly zero interactions with other editors. And it isn't for lack of concerns raised on his or her talk page. Srnec (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec I don't know what to at this point, I just redirect the latest version that was at List of Visigothic Monarchs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR. Pinging @Whpq: the editor who blocked the user in question from the File namespace. Srnec (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note at the editor's talk page. Hopefully, that will prompt them respond to issues. -- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war as you've now clearly done at Inayat Khan. None of us are allowed to behave like that. I will be restoring the well-sourced and relevant criticism section there every now and then until until you engage in proper consensus activity on that talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[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 the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

Hi @Srnec: Are you putting random links in. I had to revert. Are you not checking what your linking to? scope_creep^Talk 22:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THat is some really good well-written articles you've created. scope_creep^Talk 22:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The general was at Friedrich Stahl, so I moved him to make a dab page. I fixed some of the links, but Große Berliner Kunstausstellung was sloppiness. We don't have an article on the artist, although the German Wiki does. Why do you say he was Italian? Srnec (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Anglo-Vietnamese conflict has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A single entry disambiguation page that cannot be redirected to that entry because the subject is not mentioned there.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Arkona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danish Crusade.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[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 translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

Could you please at least bother to participate in the merger discussion instead of refusing to respond when your criticisms are addressed? The behaviour of many "participants" of the discussion where they make criticisms of the proposal but then refuse to respond when their criticisms are addressed is starting to become ludicrous, and this includes your latest "input" where you accused me of not knowing what I am trying to do although I had already made it very clear to you that all my past splits and mergers were done because that's what the data I had at hand at the time suggested I should do. Antiquistik (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this matter so much to you? What is the current setup preventing you from doing? I think we should retain sub-articles on the various Scythian kingdoms per WP:SUMMARY. If you want to call that a merge to Scythians, fine. I'd leave Scythia as a geography article. I'd restore the two articles on the lesser Scythias and structure the main article to make the progression clear. I'd do this because the main article is already 136,292 bytes long and we already have a sub-article on Scythian culture. —Srnec (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that I have added all the data that I could while the pages are in their current states, and I need to know for sure whether the pages will remain separate or will be merged to be able to add the data I now have at hand, and I can't do that so long as the status of the various pages remains uncertain.

And my concern is only with the polity of Iškuza and Pontic Scythia: I initially moved content from Scythians to these because most editors tend to be in favour of splitting as much as possible. However this is not working well because they all cover the same polity, meaning that information about these is so intertwined to the point there it is necessary to copy extremely large amounts of content from each other to provide proper historical background for each article. This, in turn creates large amounts of repetition and duplication so that about half of the present Iškuza and Scythia articles consist of material copied from each other and from Scythians.

This is why I have had no problems with splitting other sections from Scythians but been proposing to merge only Iškuza and Pontic Scythia into Scythians. I however do agree with you that Scythia should be made into a separate geography article, and, if you think it will be better to do so, then we could restore the pages of the two Scythiae Minores too. Antiquistik (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although my biggest issue so far is the thorough unseriousness of multiple participants of that discussion, which in the case of certain users goes into outright bad faith territory.

The present administrative processes of Wikipedia are clearly dysfunctional and easily abused. Antiquistik (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think summary style won't work in this instance? Why must the pages be "merged" rather than simply turned into clearer sub-articles of the main article? Why not have the political history covered in full in summary at Scythians with more depth and detail to be found in the political sub-articles (Ishkuza, Pontic Scythia, the Scythiae Minores)? Srnec (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the large amount of information overlap and duplication that I have mentioned:

• in Iškuza, the "Origins" sub-section is copied content from Scythians verbatim, and it is absolutely crucial information to understand the formation of this polity, so it can't be just removed from the page or condensed further;
• in Scythia, it's worse because the whole of the "Origins of the Scythians" sub-section and much of the "Arrival in the Pontic steppe" sub-sub-section of the "Background" sub-section, and the whole "Society" section are also merely content copied verbatim from Scythians, and the "West Asia" sub-sub-section of the "Background" sub-section is a slightly condensed summary of Iškuza, and in this case too, none of these sections can be removed or further condensed without losing crucial information to understand the formation and society of this polity.

The situation means that only the sub-sections concerning the political histories proper of Iškuza and Scythia are unique to those pages and they form less than half of each page. Meanwhile the rest, which forms the bulk of each page, is copied content which cannot be removed or further condensed. Additionally, much of the content of the "Culture and society" of Scythians requires most of the content from the political histories of Iškuza and Scythia as context to be understandable, which isn't possible under the current setting of separate pages.

The gist of it is that the information concerning the West Asian and Pontic kingdoms of the Scythians is too inherently intertwined with the general understanding of the Scythians themselves, and having stand-alone pages in this specific case makes it more difficult to convey information about the topic. Which is why I am proposing that Iškuza and the information about the political history of Scythia be merged into Scythians while, as you had earlier suggested, turning the current Scythia page into one covering the geographic term denoted by the name "Scythia."

The Medes article, which covers both the Median ethnic group and the Median Empire while there is a separate article for the region of Media, and the Ammon, Moab and Edom articles, which cover the states of Ammon, Moab, and Edom, as well as the Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite ethnic groups, are good examples of what, in my opinion, should be the format for the Scythians. Although I think I am warming up to your position that the Scythiae Minores should be their own separate pages.

Furthermore, even if merging Iškuza and Scythia into Scythians is ultimately rejected, Iškuza and Scythia would nevertheless need to be merged with each other because, as the source Ivantchik (2018) notes, the Scythian presence in West Asia (i.e. Iškuza) was merely an extension of the Scythian kingdom in the steppes (i.e. Scythia), meaning that they were not separate polities, and the aforementioned information overlap between these two articles is too extensive for these two phases of the same polity sharing extremely extensive political, social and cultural continuity.

Although I am also adding the caveat that I am not asking you to change your position in my favour, I am only asking you to engage in the discussion, which is why I only requested you to participate, not to side with me, in my initial message. Antiquistik (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the discussion does not seem to be active. I think there is no consensus for a merge, although I am not wedded to an independent Iškuza article. I think you need to approach this from a new angle. Perhaps draft articles that would show editors exactly what you have in mind? Srnec (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What must I do to show a draft to the editors? Antiquistik (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Create the draft and ping them on the draft talk page? Just a suggestion. Srnec (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec,

Take a read of WP:Quote. We do not have to reproduce spelling mistakes from quotes. It is not as if the error is very significant. Sometimes the spelling error can help to discredit the source. But that is not usually what we are trying to do. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see that, but it is an essay and I'm not sure I agree with it. The APA disagrees. Moreover, the error is not called out by "(sic)" to draw attention to it. I'm more comfortable not altering the spelling in quotations. After all, couldn't we then Americanize British spellings in quotations if we felt like it? For consistency in an article? Srnec (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[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: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

I have a bit of a conundrum.

What do you know about a rebellion by a Heinrich von Virneburg and his posssession(occupation?) of the archdiocese of Mainz? Would you know what year that occurred? Any information would be helpful. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you're talking about the "Mainz Schism" as mentioned at Baldwin of Luxembourg. This de:Heinrich III. von Virneburg was the pro-Louis IV/pro-Nicholas V candidate. It looks like the schism in Mainz lasted longer than the papal schism. Other than the sources in the German article, I don't really know of any off the top of my head. The reign of Emperor Louis IV is poorly covered in English and that definitely includes the antipapacy of Nicholas V. Srnec (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You sir, are awesome! That is more information than I was able to find. Thank you so much! Stay safe, Srnec! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[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 on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

The source is about people who claim to be just muslims not about Non-denominational Muslims!!!!!!!!! Panam2014 (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: Considering how you modified the lead at Non-denominational Muslim, your hairsplitting makes no sense to me. Srnec (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not neutral but biaised user. Panam2014 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: Well now, I read the survey and it's fairly clear that you are misreading or misrepresenting the source itself, since the Pew Research survey explicitly speaks of Muslims worldwide who choose not to affiliate with a specific sect, aka Non-denominational Muslims. Therefore, the content that you keep deleting is sourced and accurate, fully in accordance with the cited source which you keep disparaging with your useless edit warring:

“Just a Muslim”

"Many Muslims worldwide choose not to affiliate with a specific sect but volunteer that they are “just a Muslim.” This affiliation is most common in Central Asia and across Southern and Eastern Europe; in both regions, the median percentage stating they are “just a Muslim” is half or more. In Kazakhstan, nearly three-quarters (74%) of Muslims volunteer this response, as do more than six-in-ten Muslims in Albania (65%) and Kyrgyzstan (64%).

In sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, substantial minorities also consider themselves “just a Muslim” (medians of 23% and 18%, respectively). And in three countries – Indonesia (56%), Mali (55%) and Cameroon (40%) – “just a Muslim” is the single most-frequent response when people are queried about their sect. Identification as “just a Muslim” is less prevalent in the Middle East and North Africa (median of 12%) and South Asia (median of 4%)." GenoV84 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: If you accuse other editors of being biased while disrupting the project by abiding to your own POV, you are most definitely WP:NOTHERE. GenoV84 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GenoV84: stop liying. You made a clear WP:OR and violated [[WP:NOTHERE] Panam2014 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to yourself in the mirror? Because that's what it looks like....

I simply stick to the sources and didn't violate any POV, unlike you my dear. GenoV84 (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GenoV84: your behaviour is ridiculous. You are guilty of original research and misappropriation of source. Panam2014 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: Read the source again, and prove it. Remember to avoid insults and personal attacks, because that's also forbidden on Wikipedia. GenoV84 (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GenoV84: Very cheeky of you. You insulted me as a liar and a vandal Panam2014 (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criticizing a behavior is not prohibited Panam2014 (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: You have been reported to WP:ANI for insults and personal attacks. GenoV84 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec. You added a reference for "Grenfell & Hunt 1901" to Amherst papyri, and two cites for "Grenfell & Hunt 1900" but not one for 1901. Could you let me know which of the cite you meant? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks, Srnec (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is about [19]: perhaps you should suggest an alternative wording, instead of wholesale deletion. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the paper nowhere uses the word 'guru', why do you think it is relevant? Srnec (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a real difference between "guru" and "cult leader" (at least in Western contexts). tgeorgescu (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a page about cult leaders. Even the "Western" section is mostly about the Western reception of the guru–shishya tradition, which is almost the opposite of a charismatic and self-appointed leader with a set of beliefs and practices which are considered deviant (cf. cult). Srnec (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is valid. However, when Western people speak of gurus they mean people like Rudolf Steiner, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov, Osho Rajneesh, and so on. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bahun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madhesi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[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 the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

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 the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

Hi. I was beginning to slog through the newly created issue when the Hebrew redirect was changed from the language to the dab page, when I realized that there needed to be some discussion of the retargeting. So I simply reverted the change of target. Thanks for reverting those. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, based on this, Can I close as moved if literally no votes have taken place? >>> Extorc.talk 05:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It can be read as uncontroversial. That is my understanding of the 'no minimum participation' rule. In this particular case, I felt it was uncontroversial, but out of an abundance of caution for anything related to the Middle East (construed broadly), I went with RM. When I see no participation, I assume my instinct was right and it is in fact uncontroversial. Srnec (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In the article you created for the Crusade of 1129, there is a redlink to Bohemond I of Antioch's Crusade of 1107. Is this another name for the Siege of Dyrrhachium (1107–1108), and if so, would it make sense for me to make the redlink a redirect to that article? Or would this be a larger topic that would eventually get its own article. Blue Danube (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead an created a redirect tagged {{R with possibilities}}, since it is a larger topic that would eventually get its own article. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flanders campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Flanders.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[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 review three recent works

Hello Srnec, I have a question which you may think to be frivolous; when I was editing this article, I noticed that we use Lord for French noblemen who own manor, however, wouldn’t it be more qualitative if we used seigneur? The French use seigneur on their Wikipedia and it’s in the English dictionary, furthermore, I would say it’s more pertinent and appropriate even if it may seem trivial. Nonetheless, I hope you can enlighten me on this matter as someone who is more savant than me. Okiyo9228 (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "more qualitative". I think it is the same. "Lord" is a translation of "seigneur". Whether it needs translating depends, I think, on context. If we are talking about lordship, then a translation seems wise. But if we are merely using identifying titles, then there is a stronger tendency to stick to French. 'So-and-so inherited the seigneurie/lordship of X' seems fine to me either way. I do not believe English usage is terribly consistent in this. Srnec (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest doing some checking before dismissing edits as nonsense. The history of the Imperial Austrian Army starts in 1806, see the article Imperial_Austrian_Army_(1806–1867, before 1806 the Habsburg monarchy was an amalgam of territories, most of which were part of the Holy Roman Empire and therefore not fully sovereign and it's army was the Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire). I will happily shift the article linked to Imperial and Royal Army during the Napoleonic Wars which may be more relevant. Additionally your edit mentions Italian Republics, which after the Treaty of Lunéville were all merged into the Italian Republic (Napoleonic). Ecrm87 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Imperial and Royal Army during the Napoleonic Wars is probably a better link. I will issue a mea culpa of sorts, since you are correct regarding the topic of the article at Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire). But I think the distinction being drawn here between the "Imperial Army" and the "Army of the Holy Roman Empire" does not make sense. The norman translation of Reichsarmee would be "imperial army". I assumed, incorrectly, that that was what the article was about. Our two article titles do not properly distinguish their contents. John Gagliardo, Germany under the Old Regime 1600–1790, p. 4, clearly reserves "Imperial Army" for the Reichsarmee, likewise Roeland Goorts, War, State, and Society in Liège, p. 129.

As for the Italian republics, I think you are wrong. The treaty refers to the République cisalpine and République ligurienne. The Italian Republic was formed after the treaty. Srnec (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that Kaiserliche Armee and Reichsarmee both translate in English to Imperial Army, whereas the more accurate term for the former would be Emperor's Army. They were definitely separate entities as one was raised and paid for directly by the emperor from his own dominions to be used at his discretion and the other by the princes of the empire only in the event of a Reichskreig.

As for the Italian republic(s) I agree the reference in the treaty is to the two republics, but that section of the article's talking about the treaty's implications and the merger of the italian republics into one was a direct result of the treaty. Perhaps adding a later to that sentence might clarify better? Ecrm87 (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Srnec,

You moved Kizilbash (suburb) and I was wondering why the article wasn't titled Trachonas which is how the town is identified in the article. Do you know why? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I didn't even notice! But I do know why: an improper cut-and-paste move from Trachonas by Sportscorrection back in 2018. Is it possible for their histories to be merged? I have no opinion on which title is more appropriate, only that it isn't he primary topic for Kizilbash. The (correct, original) redirect was overwritten during the cut-and-paste. Srnec (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[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 on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[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: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

A tag has been placed on Francesco Contarini (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the comments here is almost trolling! I cNnot see what caused it but it is clear that you are a valuable member of the Wikipedia community. You must work full time at it. Best wishes Bev Rowe ([email protected]) BevRowe (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add a RS next to the statement [20]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was just editing the articles of the early popes and I saw someone changed one of the pope’s church from Catholic Church to Early Christianity, denoting those popes who died before the Nicene Creed. Thus, I choose to emulate the editor’s actions to serve as a modality for the early popes. Hence, I have come here to ask your opinion on the matter… Raulois (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Can you link to a diff of the kind of edit you are talking about? Srnec (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's done a load of these. It would have been better to have asked first, and asked at the Catholicism project. I'm sure the question has been discussed there before, and perhaps a consensus formed. Don't be amazed if you get reverted. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re probably right, sorry. Raulois (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Fernando de Córdoba monument.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

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. — Ирука¹³ 11:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fernando de Córdoba monument.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. — Ирука¹³ 11:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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 will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

stop deleting the info box at the Kingdom of Germany site, You do this every 2 - 4 month. I mean it's so Unnecessary And annoying AsuraZC (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[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: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heraclea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Heraclea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bro why do u remove those sieges? . pls answer me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayani55 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every single battle or siege deserves an article of its own. The sourcing for pre-modern conflicts will not necessarily support it. The articles as they stood were fluffy pieces that introduced little or no information not already in the parent article on the campaign (and better sourced there). Srnec (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec. Just to confirm, you added a reference for "Petrizzi 2010" but did you mean "Peruzzi 2010" (e.g. "A New Physics to Support the Copernican System: Gleanings from Galileo's Works")? Otherwise a new full cite will be required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks, Srnec (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[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 an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

While checking CGR article alerts, I noted that not only was the discussion about splitting Drobolitza and Mouchli closed (quite reasonably), but that both the title and the discussion on the article were now redlinked. Perhaps I'm not familiar enough with the process—but aren't discussions about keeping/deleting/merging/splitting articles usually preserved? I checked on the pages of both topics, since experience teaches me that merge proposals are often started on the wrong talk page, making them harder to locate, as clicking the link under the merge template and alerts pages lead to the place the discussion was expected to take place—but in this case the discussion doesn't seem to have gone under either of the articles, probably because the original page was deleted without a redirect. As someone more familiar with the process, I expect you can tell me—shouldn't the discussion that resulted in splitting the contents between Drobolitza and Mouchli—evidently the latter having been created as a result of the split—be preserved on at least one of the talk pages, perhaps with a link from the other, so that there's a record of what was done and why? P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drobolitza and Mouchli is linked at the top of Talk:Mouchli. Or am I misunderstanding your concern? I only moved the page without leaving a redirect using my page mover rights. I'm not an admin. I don't think I can delete any substantial content. Srnec (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake! I think I saw the discussion redlinked under article alerts, and erroneously thought it had been deleted. Probably not thinking clearly! Thanks for clearing that up. P Aculeius (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hundred Years' War, 1415–1453 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lots of the article looks OK but it's all original research without a single source. Unless somebody can add acceptable sources, is it safer to delete it?

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. Belle Fast (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Fast (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing! Before my heavy edit and recasting of the Allography/Allograph article, I searched around for uses of the word. Virtually all were about letter shapes, with the legal use (an agent on behalf of a principal) a very poor second. The Coptic/Arabic didn't come up at all. The choice of the word "allography" makes sense, given its etymology, though I can't help wondering if it is an archaic usage given that transliteration is the more generic term? So when you write "a practice known as allography", the question must arise: known by whom? Is this usage unique to Worrell?

I'm also a bit concerned by the WP:EGG effect of having [[Garshunography|Allography]]: my preference would be for Garshunography ("Allography"). But I recognise of course that this is a specialist topic and words have specific meanings in that context and are understood by the readership. So totally your call.

When you write the Garshunography article, you will need to extend the hatnote on the allograph article to point to it.

You might want to add a line or two to the Wiktionary article too? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you supported the ongoing discussion to merge the Luxembourg rebellions and Luxembourg Republic but didn't provide a reason why you supported it. I believe they should not be merged because the Luxembourg Rebellions consisted of four different revolts. Also a admistrator user:SunDawn reviewd the Luxembourg Rebellions and said it was good. I would like to know your opinion on this. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[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 English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

I left the redirect instead, as it was before brunodam's edit. The only "substantial" edit were two, literally two, sentences added by Johnbod in 2021, any other substantial edit has been done either by brunodam's sockpuppets or IPs (I can't literally find an IP which is not his). In order to magnify his own idea of Italy and Italian heritage (usually with a nostalgic fascination of fascism) brunodam doesn't really thinks twice before falsifying source or even creating his own, although the content in question appears to be just a trivial summary of contents present elsewhere, I can't trust a single word written by him. I won't open an RfD, speaking frainkly it's quite a time consuming process and I'm fairly tired of being given the burden of proof when dealing with such a blatant abuser. Bye. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is flat untrue - for example I did these edits in September, and many other editors have added stuff - look at the history. I'm reluctant to take you to ANI, but you are on your last warning.

Srnec - you haven't archived this for over 5 years, & it takes a while to find the bottom! Just saying. Thanks for your edits. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will archive it soon. Srnec (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I didn't get the point. I was just added infobox. Why you reverted this edit? ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 03:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see an infobox improving the article. Infoboxes are best where important information cannot be put into just a few reasable sentences. Srnec (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[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 Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

Your recent page moves created an error: this Italian and Swiss expedition should move here Italian and Swiss expedition of 1799, not here Italian and Swiss expedition (1799–1800). Cotling (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You undid material that I deleted from the "Problem of two emperors". It was 1) uncited and 2) likely incorrect/broadly overgeneralizing. Please continue the conversation on the talk page so we can find a resolution to the uncited material, which, I still contend, in its current form should deleted. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Not obvious improvements" is kind of a chicken way to avoid saying what you didn't like about my edit that you reverted? There were two lowercasings. Did one of them seem wrong to you? Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Both, for different reasons. First, you left the intro as The Second Battle of Dongola or siege of Dongola, which looks silly to me. If we have a name ("Second Battle of Dongola"), why are we tossing out a description in bold? If the former is not actually a name, then it, too, should be lower case. But in that case, the article should be moved, which can be done boldly or by RM. I favour the latter because I do not think the current title would be an acceptable descriptive title. I am not opposed to a move, however. Second, so-called "Old Church" looks like a way of saying "the church referred to either by natives or by scholars as the 'Old Church'". It looks, in other words, like a name. I believe it is usually capitalized in sources, as it is in The Medieval Kingoms of Nubia. Srnec (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so one "looks silly" to you, and the other might be treated as a proper name, even though there's no hint of that in the article, and no source cited near the usage. I think MOS:CAPS suggests we default to lowercase when we don't have a good reason to do otherwise; looking silly to you is not such a reason. I agree that the "Second Battle of" title needs further investigation, but it's not required that I fix everything in one go, is it? Battles often seems to have these kinds of settled names; there's no reason to think it would have two proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ref for the damaged church just calls it "a church". Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking sources, it's clear that the title is not so common, but as often "second battle" or "second Battle" as "Second Battle" (in sentences); so I moved it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Most instances of "second battle of Dongola" are probably downstream of the Wikipedia article. I can find only one case from before 2009, when our article was created. It is on p. 1 of the Historical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Nubia. It is in lower case. As for "Old Church", it should be capitalized, as it is in the Handbook of Ancient Nubia, the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia, The Christian Epigraphy of Egypt and Nubia, etc. It is consistently capitalized in RS. Most churches in Dongola have names like this (i.e., "Church of the Granite Columns"). Srnec (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add that ref to "Old Church" then. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[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 three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Why did you revert my edits under the pretext of not reliable sources. Those were various historical books with precise dates, better than, for example, the primary source used in the article, which gives single years rather than periods. One such error is the statement that Lithuania was a great power in 1450, omitting Poland, although a number of sources cite Poland and Lithuania together as a great power since the victory at Grunwald in 1410. Plus the photo of the largest great power by area seems to be adequate for the article (no room for maps of all powers as the article is short). The omission of a number of powers, like the North Sea Empire, the Second Bulgarian Empire, Poland or Hungary, is apparent to any person with at least an average interest in medieval European history.

Compare this to articles on ancient or modern powers, where each is briefly described with maps. I am not able to develop the article in a similar way because I do not know various languages, however, it seems to me I have taken a step in the right direction in which the article could be developed. Please explain precisely how the sources I cited were inferior to some of those already used, and do not just one-click revert my or other users' sizable edits without prior discussion, if only out of consideration for someone's effort. Marcin 303 (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Srnec,

I review the Move log daily and it seemed like today there were a number of times where you moved an article from A title to B title, and a few minutes later moved it from B title back to A title. If this happened once, it would seem like a simple mistake but I saw this happening several times. I guess I'd just like to ask you to be more careful with your page moves, think about whether an article should be moved to a different page title (or not moved) and, if so, what it should be and get the spelling and grammar correct the first time. Since you are a page mover, if any of these mistaken page moves were do to misspellings, then you don't need to leave a redirect behind when you move an article back. And if you are trying to create redirects, you can do that easily without moving an article just by putting #REDIRECT on the redirect page along with the current title.

I realize that you are a very experienced editor so I was more suprised at these move reverts and just thought I'd cover all of the bases in this message. Thanks for all of your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Why did you remove my family name from the Muhtasib wikipedia page? It is accurate and directly related to the information. I can testify that the family is from Hebron. Please revert the change kindly, thank you. Quilterson (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

You recently redirected David II of Georgia to David II, but the only viable target on that page is David IV of Georgia - sometimes known as David II (he was listed as David II, but I've fixed that). The only other possible candidate that I can find is David II of Iberia who was a member of the Georgian Bagratid dynasty, but that seems a bit of a stretch. It seems to me that it would be better to revert back to David IV of Georgia - what do you think? Leschnei (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that "David II of Georgia" is a clear title. I think it would be natural to assume that David II of Georgia and David II of Iberia were the same person. In fact, the Historical Dictionary of Georgia has three David IIs and our "David II of Iberia" is described as "king of Georgians". See here. Srnec (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an addition to my original question, but apparently didn't save it properly - after digging some more I found several other people who could be called David II of Georgia. So I agree with you, it is not a clear title, and should redirect to the DAB page. Leschnei (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to discuss the name of the category on Category talk:Texts attributed to Ezra—-W2024 (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attributed is an offensive word. Ascribed, assigned, or traditionally authored are more appropriate —-W2024 (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman de Waldef, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Narborough.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Your "Ciceronianism" article is quite well done! Please, accept this barnstar. Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Srnec. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vasconia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[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 four recent works

Hello, I am a graduate student studying the Visigoths and Visigothic kingdom pages. I think it is misleading to include the historical myth that the Kingdom of Asturias and specifically Pelagius was the beginning of the 'Reconquista" (which itself it one of those umbrella loaded terms like 'Crusades'). Do you think it is possible to remove these references? Or should I leave them in and add more text about why it is not considered accurate (by current historians) Thanks, Tmarac (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC) User: Tmarac[reply]

@Tmarac: What articles are you referring to exactly? Srnec (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Srnec, I am referring to the The Visigoths article:

"A Visigothic nobleman, Pelayo, is credited with beginning the Christian Reconquista of Iberia in 718, when he defeated the Umayyad forces in the Battle of Covadonga and established the Kingdom of Asturias in the northern part of the peninsula."

Roger Collins in The Arab Conquest of Spain page 148

Pelagius did not think he was 'reviving' the Visigothic Kingdom. A Christian bishop was fighting on the side of the Arabs against Pelagius.

And more broadly:

page 198 "counterweight to tendancy to believe that the Arab invasion marks a totally new beginning".

Thanks,

Terry Tmarac (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"is credited with" X certainly doesn't imply that Pelayo had X in mind. I have nevertheless reworded to remove reference to the Reconquista, which is largely out of scope at Visigoths. Srnec (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Srnec,

Thank you very much. I appreciate your help.

The Visigothic kingdom article (also) includes this sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the section titled Muslim Conquest:

"The only effective resistance was in Asturias, where a Visigothic nobleman named Pelagius revolted in 718, and defeated the Muslims at the battle of Covadonga; this was the beginning of the Reconquista.[citation needed]"

As I am a newcomer editor I am hesitant to remove the phrase "this was the beginning of the Reconquista", (I would retain the first part of the sentence). Do you think I should go ahead?

Thanks, Terry Tmarac (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Worst case, you are reverted and then you have to discuss the change. See WP:BRD. Bold editing is encouraged, but when challenged, discuss. Explaining your edit succinctly in an edit summary helps avoid misunderstanding. Srnec (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Srnec,

Thank you. I just read the WP:BRD. I might post my plans in the talk page first. Likely I will go ahead with the edit and will have a edit summary ready.

Thanks, Terry Tmarac (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly appreciate your review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raynald of Châtillon/archive1. I am sure you could suggest further changes to improve the article. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you helped improve some of my edits at Alexander Romance and I appreciate it. I have noticed that the article has a C-class content assessment but I think that after my work on the page this may be able to be elevated. Do you know how I can request a reassessment of the articles content quality? Pogenplain (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can change it yourself by normal editing (strange and/or gauche as that may seem). Myself, I don't care much about article ratings. They are often done in a semi-automated manner and they serve mainly to identify articles needing improvement (I think). There is still a lot of room for improvement at Alexander Romance, but that goes with the territory of such an expansive topic. With your improvements there and over at Clementine literature, you are crossing articles of off my to-do list! Srnec (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've noticed that I forgot to respond to your review of my DYK nomination. I don't know how that happened, but I finally replied a few days ago. I think your suggestions are good. The mention of the image can be next to Eretna instead of the Eretnid dynasty, because the coin belongs to Eretna and not his descendants, who used different motifs. Let me know if I need to do anything in addition, because I have not self-nominated any other article for DYK before. Aintabli (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I've had the pleasure of encountering your stressed-out-scribe userpage image for many years now, always in association with little treasures like Psalter–Hours of Yolande de Soissons. Please know that your dedication is noticed and the quality of your work appreciated! jengod (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Srnec. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Zirid raid on Gabes, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted the page to an edit you did a back in July 2023 under the pretense of "vandalism" without further explanation. I fail to see what's been vandalised in any of edits after yours. Would you mind explain yourself? Do you simply feel an arbitrary ownership of the article in question? Voy178 (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was by the now blocked user JR1993, a longtime account abuser. I preserved one of your edits, but not the infobox, which I oppose. We can discuss the infobox on the talk page if you want. Srnec (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like to know what's wrong with the infobox. It's very useful and the norm on all featured and good articles. Voy178 (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:INFOBOXUSE, infoboxes are never required. In this case, it repeats his uncertain birth and death dates from the lead and lists his relatives. It gives his "house" as "Salerno", which is just silly. In my opinion, it adds no value. It does not present information in a convenient way that is superior to prose, as the infoboxes of modern politicians and athletes often do. Srnec (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe lists are easier to read. It's just an overview. Especially useful when considering the section on his family. The entries into the infobox may change as sources changes. I feel like you just have a bias against infoboxes. Consider Cleopatra. Voy178 (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WaggersTALK 12:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[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, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

Hello Srnec. I see that when I create some pages you connect it to a Wikidata item. I saw this most recently with the page I made today Babyloniaca (Berossus) just now. Is this connection something I should or can be doing myself? This is a feature I do not know. Thank you. Pogenplain (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pogenplain: You can, but the only way to do it yourself that I know is to check Wikidata to see if the topic exists there already. Eventually a Wikidata page will be created for any new article. At that point, we migh have two different Wikidata items for the same thing and they will need to be merged. (That's also easy to do. There's a merge button on Wikidata.) In this case, I went to see if there was a Babyloniaca dab page at other Wikis. I checked the French first. When I go to https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babyloniaca, there is no article but it lists Wikidata results at the bottom. That's how I learned there was a Dutch page on Berossus' text. There is probably a better way... but I usually stumble on Wikidata items by roundabout routes like that. Srnec (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I notice that you have reverted my edit. May I ask why? Because the information I added has proper citation and as I see it, there's no reason that it has to be reverted. Also you labeled my edit as vandalism? Juleskoundes (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[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 a diverse range of works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the "center of gravity"

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 the Tokyo war crimes trials

per trouvère "Trouvère (/truːˈvɛər/🔈, French: [tʁuvɛʁ]🔈), sometimes spelled trouveur (/truːˈvɜːr/🔈, French: [tʁuvœʁ]🔈), is the Northern French (langue d'oïl) form of the langue d'oc (Occitan) word trobador, the precursor of the modern French word troubadour. Trouvère refers to poet-composers who were roughly contemporary with and influenced by the trobadors, both composing and performing lyric poetry during the High Middle Ages, but while the trobadors composed and performed in Old Occitan, the trouvères used the northern dialects of France. One of the first known trouvère was Chrétien de Troyes (fl. 1160s–1180s) and the trouvères continued to flourish until about 1300. Some 2130 trouvère poems have survived; of these, at least two-thirds have melodies." etc Mason (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a dialect specific verision of a troubadour. Please undo you revertsMason (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Trouvères are French-language composers, while troubadours are Occitan-language composers. This is how the terms are used in English. The categories are misnamed. I tried to fix it here, but the categorists don't seem to care if our category names are misleading/inscrutable. Srnec (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it seems like those people should be in the French troubadours category based on the CFD. They're french nationals who are poet composers. What am I missing? Mason (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like at the very least they should be in Category:13th-century French composers and Category:13th-century French poets, instead of Category:13th-century French people. Mason (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "troubadour" implies the Occitan language, while "trouvère" implies French. Thus, trouvères are not troubadours, since they did not write in Occitan. The modern use of "troubadour" to mean itinerant musical performer does not at all reflect scholarly usage. The term "French troubadour" is almost oxymoronic. Srnec (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be so salty about it. Anyway, I've moved them to French composers, as that's a category that reflects their nationality, not their language. Mason (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice of Champagne/archive1. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Duchy of St. Sava has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 28 § Duchy of St. Sava until a consensus is reached. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why deleted my added Barony of Vaud flag 150.116.67.61 (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Srnec (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[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

Hi Srnec, I hope this message finds you well. I noticed that my recent edits on the Al-Yunini and Ibn Abi al-Dam articles were reverted, and I wanted to understand the reasons behind this decision. My intention was to improve the articles by adding an infoboxes. I was about to add one to the Al-Kutubi but refrained myself after noticing it.

Could you please provide some insight into why the edits were reverted? I am eager to learn and contribute positively to Wikipedia, and your feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and assistance. Ainty Painty (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inofoboxes are somewhat contentious, at least on certain types of article. See Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. Generally speaking, I think they are overused. They are never required, per MOS:INFOBOXUSE. They are best when there are details that cannot be easily or efficiently conveyed in prose in the lead. I do not think they add much value to relatively short articles on historical writers. Srnec (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Srnec. I was browsing around randomly and saw something i don't understand, which i see you added here: His dates written as "1244×1247 – 29 August 1287" ~ what does 1244x1247 mean? Very possibly it's all over the place, but i don't remember seeing it before, so thought i'd ask; hope you don't mind. Thank you. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 22:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It indicates a range, i.e., "born between 1244 and 1247". Ideally, we'd have the "×" marked the way we mark the "c." and "fl." in, e.g., c. 1245 and fl. 1244–1247, but I'm not tech savvy enough to do it. Srnec (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thank you so much for the explanation. One of the best things about reading and editing here most days is that i thus learn something most days. I did see that the range was shown that way in the DNB you used as a reference (though didn't understand it there, either). Thanks again, Lindsay 07:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added the tooltip ~ surely i'm not the only reader who didn't understand! Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 07:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[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 two works on logistics and one on the Battle of Arnhem

The redirect Za'ura has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Za'ura until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame that you did not nominate the article Tomb of Charles III of Navarre and Eleanor of Castile at WP:Did you know. My Charles III nomination caught a lot of attention. Just the mention of King Charles III's tomb would have seen people flocking to the article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like QPQ. Feels like a chore. Srnec (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Srnec

Recently i wanted to create an article regrading Siege of Silves (1191) during the Reconquista. Later i discovered that there was an already existing article regarding that but redirected towards Almohad campaign against Portugal (1190–1191). Seeing the history page [21], I've stumbled on AFD of the page which you nominated. It was redirected as it doesn't have more details.

I've created a page on my sandbox that covers details of the siege. Does it achieve notability? Should we reverse the redirect or add the content on Almohad campaign against Portugal (1190–1191)? Let me know what you think.

Here's my sand box User:عبدالرحمن4132/sandbox5. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find State of Islam in Andalusia. Is this an Arabic work? We need better bibliographic data. I think the article is short enough to handle the addition. But if you would prefer to overwrite the redirect, go ahead. Srnec (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Srnec

Regarding the book yes its an arabic work consisting of multiple volumes from the beginning of Muslim Spain til its fall.

I'll try to check for more sources that could be added. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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 will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few months the articles Ramon Berenguer IV of Barcelona, Petronilla of Aragon, Alfonso II of Aragon, and Count of Barcelona have been edited to show Petronilla as the countess of Barcelona from 1162 to 1164 in succession to Ramon Berenguer instead of Alfonso. Is this correct? Surtsicna (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, I would not think so. I would think that Alfonso succeeded his father. This article seems to say as much. That doesn't mean that Petronilla did not continue to style herself Countess of Barcelona at least until 1164 (see here, but not in 1173). She may have been regent of Barcelona in some sense in 1162–1164. I have read the Stalls paper cited in the Petronilla article, but if I have a digital copy it is on a harddrive I do not currently have access to. I can only see snippets on Google Books. This says that she had no authority outside of Aragon proper. She certainly did not cede Barcelona to Alfonso in 1164 (see here). I think these changes should be reverted. Srnec (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Srnec: How goes it? I saw your merge. Are you not supposed to do a mergeto and mergefrom on both articles and kick the discussion of why you want a merge? Anyway, there seems to two siege articles Siege of Silves (1190) and Siege of Silves (1191), so probably not worth since there is a lot of details in them. I left a comment. scope_creep^Talk 09:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my minor typographical improvement to the article.

Just FYI and to explain my edit: as you probably know, straight apostrophes (' U+0027) are ambiguous when it comes to transliterating ʿayn and hamza. I saw there was already a full transliteration, and I just thought it might help readers to see also in the initial boldface transliteration that the characters referred to are ʿayn; hence my use of U+2018 ‘. No one is criticizing or overlooking the existing transliteration. I was just discreetly improving what is already a good stub. We can help each other generously in Wikipedia. Cheers. Desde la Torre (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:ARABIC. For myself, I'm happy to ditch basic transliteration in the article body and just use strict transliteration throughout, but this is not what most editors want. (It is what I do in articles I write from scratch, but the MOS does not fully support it.) In basic transliteration, ayn and hamza are not distinguished. Srnec (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm EmilySarah99. Your recent edit(s) to the page Eleanor of Aquitaine appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please see Style of the French sovereign before making further edits on the topic. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Queen of France" is the normal term in English, regardless of the Latin, just as we do not insist on "King of the English" just because of the Latin rex Anglorum. Or how we use "Holy Roman Emperor" when no such title was ever used. Srnec (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Sicily has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why you removed the infobox I created for Bernardo Bembo. His page is listed under "pages that need infoboxes," and I had provided a comprehensive one. Could you explain why it was reverted back to its previous state? MeirKovner (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not comprehensive. The article mentions several other ambassadorships and podesterie that were not included. Overall, I don't think an infobox is needed for this article. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t a hill I’m willing to die on, but I do want to point out my perspective on your reasoning. Why not simply add the missing offices instead of deleting the entire infobox? While you may personally feel an infobox isn’t necessary, the article has been manually placed in the “needs an infobox” category. Don’t you think it was added to that page for a reason? I understand you’ve been editing this article for years, and are emotionally invested in it. Would you be willing to add the offices that weren’t originally included rather than reverting all the work?? Best regards. MeirKovner (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was added to that category for no other reason than it was lacking an infobox and some users feel that every article should have one. I do not think that adding all his offices to an infobox or determining which of his offices deserve inclusion in an infobox is a great use of time or article space. Why do you think the article benefits from an infobox rather than, say, an expanded lead (which I am willing to do)? Srnec (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - What a great article. I copied the pics to Commons, hope you don't mind. They could use some categorization there if you can let me know what to put. Also, this article reminded me of something I saw once but I can't seem to find. It was another French, Spanish or Italian manuscript writer possibly named Moses, possibly a poet or a botano-medical writer, with some kind of illustrated or illuminated manuscript showing leaves, like of a tree not a folio. Any idea what I'm thinking of? I searched through hundreds of articles but I can't seem to find it. I was thinking one of their works was something to do with Love or Heart but that lead me to ibn Pakuda which wasn't right. Andre🚐 20:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[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: Hog Farm looks at the bayou battles for Vicksburg

Maybe you should update your user page

And don't forget to add Carlo Andrea Caracciolo in the section "Some articles that I have created" :) Shashvat Verma (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I don't think you have enough of these. For your long years of many good edits. Andre🚐 18:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Lleida (1149), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montagut.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raffaello Borghini, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Francesco Bassano, Francesco Salviati and Alessandro Fei.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[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 Army divisions in the Pacific War, Nick-D on the First Indochina War

Since the nomination closed before I could reply to your comment - my father is a huge Yankees fanatic. Therefore I am by definition a Yankees hater, so yeah, hahaha at them getting humiliated in that 5th inning. Go Mets / Phillies. (My paternal grandfather was a Cubs fan and not a Yankees fan either, and my father never lived in New York. It is a mystery.)

Also you should give my referencing style a try some time! No need for a secondary click to get to the real reference for stuff like monograph chapters / journal articles, it's just there for the reader, while still getting the benefit of short footnotes for full books. (Well obviously you should use whatever style you like, of course.) Clearly we should modify CITEVAR to mandate SnowFire-style referencing everywhere... SnowFire (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Austuriani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Robert Scalio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved 15 years. Not a reigning sovereign. Tagged as potentially non-notable for 10 months.

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. Bearian (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[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 battles of Operation Veritable in 1945

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Sacramentarium episcopi Warmundi, crucifixion.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as the web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the direct/bare URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 07:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It appears that you have indeed removed Foggia from the list of capitals of the HRE and i thank you for that, however, I noticed that you also removed Palermo, which was not my request. Palermo was indeed the capital of the Holy Roman Empire during Frederick II’s reign, this is supported by valid historical sources. I kindly ask you to reinstate Palermo in the Capital list from 1194 to 1254 with the past listed sources. Thank you once again. AstolfoPannaci (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Srnec, I would like to obtain your permission to return edits on the article on Gurzil and continue working on it, I would love if you want to monitor the article in case you want to keep track on changes made to it, if you would like to protect the article I do not mind if you deem it necessary that I consult you about changes first before making them. let me know what you would like to decide :) Lobus (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec hello again, thank you for your honest suggestions on the article Gurzil, I have taken time to add sources to the publications that I have read on the deity, I will take a small break before I continue adding more and improving the historicity of the article, I would love if you would take a look, feel free to remove or modify what you see as unfit :) Lobus (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		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) 15:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Adoration of the Magi in the Snow (1563) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When a rationale for why some element of a page title is inappropriate has been given in detail already, and agreed with by other respondents, and refuted by no one, then you showing up in WP:IDHT manner, with a WP:JUSTAVOTE / WP:ILIKEIT sort of "it should not be renamed" demand anyway that provides no rationale at all for why the guidelines should be set aside in this case, then your input is simply stressy noise that clouds the discussion, makes consensus harder for the closer to figure out, and is a drain on other editors' time, productivity, and goodwill. The purpose of RM (and similar discussions like XfD and RfC) is for the community to come to a consensus that is compliant with the policies and guidelines, with WP community norms, with the project's goals. It is not for gadflies to refuse to drop the stick about little peccadilloes they persist at but which the community has not accepted. In this particular case, there are guidelines (plus WP:CONCISE policy) very clearly against extraneously attaching years or ranges of years to titles of event articles except when they have to be disambiguated from another too-similiarly-named event. E.g., it's War of the Spanish Succession, not "War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714)", and that is not going to change (not in general, and not for a particular country, conflict, etc., without an ambiguity that must be resolved for readers).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: What are you talking about? Srnec (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most immediately: Talk:Rustamid succession crisis#Requested move 6 December 2024. "If it is a descriptive title, then `Rustamid crisis of 873–874` is the way to go" is flat-out wrong, and of course that pointless "pre-emptive disambiguation" with a date range was not what we used. PS: Please archive your talk page; 500+ threads is really excessive, especially on smaller devices or those without hardcore-gamer amounts of RAM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The move request was for Rustamid Crisis (873-874) → Rustamid crisis. I oppose that and stated my reason clearly: "We cannot decide, when titles are of our own invention, that this was the Rustamid crisis". We cannot create descriptive titles of the form "___ crisis/incident/affair". Naming events that way is common, but it isn't up to us. Such terms are far too vague unless we are following the direction of reliable sources. There are no GScholar hits for "Rustamid crisis". I supported a descriptive title, including the current one, Rustamid succession crisis. By "the way to go", I meant merely that the way to convert the then current title into a proper descriptive title was to de-capitalize it, switch to a hyphen and remove the parentheses. That is all. (Had I stumbled on the article before the RM, I would have performed such a move myself as noncontroversial.) I did not mean to indicate that it was the only way to go. By "perhaps" I only meant that I was not taking a positon on which of "Rustamid crisis of 873–874" and "Rustamid succession crisis" was superior, but I thought it was clear that I did not object to the latter. When Dicklyon pinged editors after the relist, he did not ping me. I assumed he understood from my comment that I supported it. So I think my comment was constructive in that it prevented the bad title "Rustamid crisis" from winning. This case is completely unlike "War of the Spanish Succession", which is actually a name that is normally capitalized. Of course it doesn't need dates. Descriptive titles are different and dates may well be the most useful part of the description. I have made this argument before, as when I unsuccessfully opposed moving Siege of Baghdad (1258). Given your own comment in the RM—It's likely this page should move to some other title entirely. This is clearly an attempt at a WP:NDESC title, but "crisis" is not necessarily a neutral enough term.—I don't know what you object to in my comment. Why do you think "Rustamid crisis" is compliant with the policies and guidelines? I don't.

Now on the topic of draining other editors' time, productivity, and goodwill... You come to my talkpage to accuse me of being a "gadfly" who refuses "to drop the stick about little peccadilloes they persist at but which the community has not accepted." I have no idea what you are thinking of. You accuse me of a WP:JUSTAVOTE / WP:ILIKEIT sort of "it should not be renamed" demand when I clearly supported a rename. Srnec (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[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 on the Franco-Prussian War Op-ed: Nick-D visits the Swiss Air Force Museum

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6 § States and territories (dis)established in YYYY on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. harrz ^talk 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[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: Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Nick-D look at Germans in the Flanders Campaign and 50 years of Australian military history Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly appreciate your comments on the article about the War of the Antiochene Succession at the review page. I will be away for two weeks with limited access to internet, but I would address all issues you raised as soon as I returned. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at it. Srnec (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]