User talk:Gabr-el/Archive 3

Ashurism

Hey, sorry to bust your balls like this every five seconds, but do you perhaps have something about this to add? Dab keeps on wanting to merge it with whatever article he likes, because he thinks there's not enough content, so I wonder if you have anything in your books to fill this one up with? Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:44 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Median Concubines

You got it. You also get to drive a royal Cadilac Escalade and live in a Palace on the Euphrates with Armed Robo-Guards with infrared vision and cat-like reflexes. Sharru Kinnu III 13:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tourskin

Your civility and professionality are rare among Wikipedians and assets to the encyclopedia. Korossyl 12:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comments

I seriously don't know why I gave you this now. You don't deserve it if you are gonna bash me in every discussion about the level of detail I give. I will continue to discuss and I know that you will continue to pester me, but thats ok, I'll just ignore you from now onwards. Tourskin 21:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not really sure what you're complaining about. I admit, I was being a bit mean when I addressed your Taiwan in China comment but since you'd previously nitpicked on my comment I didn't see any harm. I do consider it important to draw a distinction between the PRC and ROC as I said, and probably would have addressed your comments about China had it not been from you anyway. Really when someone says "Taiwan isn't part of China" they're just asking for it IMHO. That is the only time when I have 'pestered' you so to speak so I'm not sure why you're so worked up about this. I may have responded to some of your other comments but in most cases I didn't notice it was you responding and even if I did, the fact it was you was irrelevant. I often address comments when I disagree with them and I also address comments when I feel they are flawed even if I agree with the main point. Anyway I apologise for any offence since none was intended. Although to be honest, I couldn't give a flying flip if you ignore me. But a word of advice, it might help if you learn to follow threads and learn to indent properly since discussions can get very confusing when you don't indent properly and don't follow threads properly. Cheers Nil Einne 10:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Autobiography

I actually want to right a book that starts out as an autobiography detailing my almost fictional-seeming life but then after the conclusion of all the current events start to get into my fantasty-visions of the future and make it somewhat apocalyptical a la the Book of Revelaltions but almost as a farce and comedic-like. Sharru Kinnu III 14:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thank you for your welcome. I'm excited about WP and WV and jumped in head-first already on both sites, mostly here doing copyediting [where I feel qualified, that is]. Happy Meetings! Shir-El too 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ideology Update

Check it out. I think you'll find it interesting... Sharru Kinnu III 15:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree.

The middle east needs to be recreated in the image of the advanced ancients. It needs civilization again. Sharru Kinnu III 14:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox chat-room in margine of page.

How do I get in touch with a Custodian directly? The message I just left on the vandels' report page took a hike as soon as I wrote it. Is there a phantom Custodian at work? Shir-El too 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you: the Sandbox is cleared every 12 hours now. However, it was preceded a few minutes before that by a picture of a nude woman and the comments seemed to refer to that. Also, someone left a comment about it on the discussion page; see History. Thank you again, Shir-El too 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OJY~

Marlith ^T/C has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith ^T/C 04:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On this sad anniversary, let us spread the Joy to others.Marlith ^T/C 04:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Let us brighten up the darkness. Melt the clouds of sin and sadness. Shall we? Marlith ^T/C 04:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Military history of the Neo-Assyrian Empire

Hi Tourskin! Thanks for your comments.

Looking at the history for the article talk page, the grade was changed from A to B by CloudNine. As I explained on the talk page, I delisted the nomination from GAC because, from the comments, it looked as though editors were going to try for FA rather than GA status. The article will not pass GA as it stands, but I didn't want to post a load of comments and place the GA on hold if this was no longer what editors wanted.

I did note in my comment that this was not a GA failure (how could it be, when the article had not been assessed?!), so I'm not sure why CloudNine mentioned this in his edit summary. However, from the assessment criteria for the MilHist WikiProject here, I do think A-class is possibly a bit optimistic at this stage and he was probably right about the B grading. A is actually higher than GA, and only one step below FA, in the rankings.

As to editors assessing their own articles, this is not really appropriate for GA, A and FA because there are formal review procedures for the award of these ratings. You obviously already know FA and GA, and for articles that come under the Military History WikiProject (as Military history of the Neo-Assyrian Empire does), an A-class review can be requested here.

If you want to relist the article at WP:GAC, that's no problem. I left some notes on the talk page that were intended to help with taking the article further - these issues will come up at GA, A or FA, so you might find it helpful to address some of them before any further assessment nominations. There is currently a backlog building up at GAC (again!) - if you do decide you still want the GA review, and you are happy for me to do it, you can leave me a message on my talk page and I'll bump you to the top of my in-tray ;)

All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 09:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Web Log

I'm starting a comprehensive philosophical blog to address many issues of belief in a mostly non-offensive way. 14:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Sharru Kinnu III

Byzantium under the Angeloi

Will do, but not for a couple of weeks .... off to Cappadocia today! --Javits2000 06:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

On September 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Byzantium under the Angeloi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done Tourskin. Really comprehensive article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Mike Young has smiled at you! He says “ Great to meet an Assyrian! Although I have supported a family, I have never actually talked to one! You can email me (see my user page), and tell me a bit more about myself ” Mike Young 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tourskin/Decline of Byzantium 1180-1204.

Excellent work on the article; I admire your enthusiasm. I really like the way you bring the story to life in your articles! It's great to see someone writing detailed articles in this way, instead of the dull and boring short style which has destroyed Byzantine Empire.

I have been thinking about where best to put the material from ' User:Tourskin/Decline of Byzantium 1180-1204.' It is really a story of its own, rather than belonging to the history of the Komnenoi or the Palaiologoi. Perhaps a new article, Byzantium under the Angeloi, is the best solution?

Good work with Byzantium under the Palaiologoi, by the way. I really enjoyed reading it; I also learned a lot of new things in the process. Bigdaddy1204 18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit - Sorry for being a bit slow - I have just noticed that you have already created Byzantium under the Angeloi! Good job! Bigdaddy1204 18:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Heraclius

Regarding this edit and this one:

Please do not add a protection template to a page that is not actually protected. If you want to ask for a page to be protected, make a proper request. Only administrators may protect pages. Thank you. Resurgent insurgent 03:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just adding a protection template, such as {{semi-protected}}. does not protect the page. Anonymous editors can still edit it at will.

Real page protection is done using the "protect" link which appears only for admins, next to the "history" link. This is what the protection policy refers to when it says protecting a page. Not just adding a template (a page can be protected with no template whatsoever, although we normally don't do that). If you don't see the "protect" link next to the "history" link, you can't protect pages - that's the Mediawiki software doing its thing. When our protection policy says "Administrators can protect pages to restrict editing," that is a passive description of how Mediawiki works.

In response to your request, we protect pages when vandalism occurs too frequently to be revertable, which I don't see is the case here. Resurgent insurgent 05:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! I will make a place for it on my user page... :) Bigdaddy1204 09:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 20 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Byzantium under the Heraclian, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Heraclian dynasty

Hello! It is not a matter of "helping" or the size of the title (it really isn't that big, IMO), but simply of correct or wrong. As I explained, "Heraclian" alone is nonsense. If you prefer not to have the term "dynasty", you may use the name "Heraclians", which means pretty much the same thing. However, in my opinion, unlike "Komnenoi" and "Palaiologoi", which are dynastic family names (and understandable as such per se), in the case of the Heraclians, the term "dynasty" ought to be preserved to clarify what we are exactly talking about. As far as I understand, this is also the practice preferred in scholarship (cf. the Julio-Claudians) when referring to dynasties and royal houses in general. Regards, Cplakidas 22:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand what confuses you, and I am getting annoyed at not getting through. "Heraclian" is an adjective. Alone, it has no specific meaning. It needs a noun which it defines, to be both meaningful and grammatically correct. That can be "line", "dynasty", "era/epoch" or whatever you like. But it can not stand on its own. This is not a naming dispute, it is me trying to correct a title which is manifestly incorrect and you not accepting it. "Byzantium under the Heraclian" just doesn't mean anything meaningful, but "Byzantium under the Heraclians/Heraclian line/Heraclian dynasty" are all valid forms. Choose one and let's be done with it, because I am not in a mood to loose any more sleep over this. PS, about Norwich, whom I see you use a lot. He is good as a starter (it was for me), but his books contain mistakes and inaccuracies, and he offers what is at best a superficial treatment of Byzantine history. I advise you to try to use other, more scholarly sources as well. Regards, Cplakidas 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being rude, but yesterday was a bad day, and I was writing at 3 am local time. But, I did say that "Heraclian" is an adjective quite clear enough, right here: "Heraclian" alone means nothing, it is an adjective. It can only have sense in the full term "Heraclian dynasty", and it seemed to me that you simply ignored this, and that annoyed me. As for why "Heraclian" is an adjective, the ending -ian is appended to names to make them adjectives. "Komnenoi" and the likes are but the transliterated Greek plurals (in Latin they would be "Comneni", in English something like "Comnenians"). The equivalent form would be "Heraclians". For the fourth time, "Heraclian" alone just doesn't mean anything, and in the context of the article title is just wrong. You are free to test it by googling it (it exists as a personal name, but with no connection with the dynasty of Heraclius) or by asking a philologist. I really don't know how to make it any plainer. Cplakidas 10:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Can we use Heraklanoi? Or Heraclanoi?" I don't think there is a single name in Greek for the dynasty that can be used in a way analogous to the others. Something like "Ηρακλειανοί" (i.e. "Heraclians"), would be a neologism. IMO, "Heraclians" or, better still, "Heraclian dynasty" are the best solutions, as mentioned in my first post above. Cplakidas 17:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Heraclians", "Heraclian dynasty" are the same thing. Despite my preference for the latter, both are equally correct, so suit yourself. Happy to have this over. ;) Cplakidas 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 26 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Constantinople (626), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 13:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My continuing story line...

I moved it to my blog since assholes in admin were complaining about it being on my user page. blog.myspace.com/sargonious <--- check it out Sharru Kinnu III 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Guy who pissed you off in 'Byzantine Empire' article discussion

Hey I saw your reply to what I wrote in that section, I must of been in a really bad mood because my reply was totally unwarented, I would recommend deleting it if you wish to do so. I have already apologised in the discussion for my patronizing manor/ uneccessary umbridge. My total apologies.172.188.207.75 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire and East-Hem Maps

Near East in 565AD, showing the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire at its height.

Thank you for your words, Tourskin. It did help clarify for me. I definitely appreciate your dedication and work on Wikipedia, and info you've added has definitely helped me with the maps. FYI (in case you're interested), I've got a blank East-Hem map available on my website (http://www.ThomasLessman.com/History/images/blank-East-Hem.jpg) that you can use to create your own maps. You can also crop the maps I've already created, use them to help create your own maps, whatever helps people learn more about history.

Also I've done some experimenting with the maps, specifically for the Byzantine Empire article. One of the maps I just uploaded to Wikipedia, but wanted to get a consensus before putting it up on the Byzantine Empire article. Here it is, for a sneak preview. And thanks again, Tourskin! Thomas Lessman 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Isaurians and Macedonians

Good idea about the rulers- I didn't think you'd mind I put up some of your article as a temporary holder. I would like to contribute after my History of Anatolia work is completed- I just can't stand leaving something half-finished! Monsieurdl 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine-Seljuk wars GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have reviewed Byzantine-Seljuk wars and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 07:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work on Seljuk and Ottoman history. Thanks. Lysandros 13:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

HI,

Can you provide sources for Siege of Antioch (1268)? Thanks.Bless sins 14:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Byzantine-Seljuk Wars.PNG

Hi, could you please clarify where the components of this image Image:Byzantine-Seljuk Wars.PNG are from? Especially the one top left looks as if it could easily be copyrighted, so we need a source to verify it's free. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems. cheers! Baristarim 06:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)