User talk:Srnec/Archive, 10 December 2005–8 January 2008

Welcome

I see that you are working in some pretty abstruse areas. Let me know if I can be of help. Not that I'm an expert on things medieval, but I'm pretty knowledgable on things Wikipedian. - Jmabel | Talk 00:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alboin

Why not return to Paul the Deacon for colorful details? Give the article some juicy quotes instead. --Wetman 21:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My information was garnered from Charles Oman. I decided to put it in when I read the comment in the discussion page there, which seemed to confirm it. It seems apt. Srnec 21:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why not quote Oman, then? Or, less good, refer to him? "Womanly wiles" presented as a fact of human life is a little creaky nowadays, don't you think? but the details are drawn from Paulus Diaconis. It's all posted on-line, somewhere. --Wetman 23:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did refer to him: I added Oman to the references. I couldn't quote him, I didn't have the book with me then. The comment on the discussion page prompted me to add it, as it had occurred to me before and apparently to someone else also. I know that "womanly wiles" as I wrote it would sound a little "old", but the whole article is based on the 1911 Encyclopaedia. I did not intend to present it as a "fact of life": there are plenty of women with no wiles, I was merely signifying that the wiles used were of a specifically feminine variety—a way of saying she initiated an affair with the purpose of getting something out of someone. I did find the quote online in Paul's work. I don't believe, however, that quoting is necessary here. The incident is supported by the sources. Merely expressing it in different language is probably best. Srnec 03:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radbod, king of the Frisians

Could you offer some suggestions on this page since you attached the cleanup tag? I think the article could benefit from greater detail, but may not need the cleanup tag at this time. I'll give you a couple of days before I remove the tag. Hiberniantears 16:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned it up and removed tag. I moved the page to a grammatically better title. I added a list of Frisian rulers (stub) page and a Radbod disambiguation page. Now some links may need fixing, but I already fixed a few. Srnec 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Hiberniantears 20:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I would have done that earlier but I had not time, so I tagged it with a cleanup. Srnec 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for ur help on the kingdom of galicia article Jfreyre

lol to much wine for today... lol Jfreyre

Welcome. It turned out nicely. Srnec 05:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert

Dear Srnec, could you please tell me whether you have found something about Norbert, mayor of Neustria, whom I added to the list of mayors. I had in mind that he was a brother to Pepin, but couldn't find anything about that. Since you added him to sons of Ansegisel, I presume that you know more. Cheers, Str1977 14:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I have seen him listed in other lists of mayors of the palace, but I have never read anything about him and have never seen him outside of lists. I added him to the Ansegisel article because of what was stated on the list of mayors page: for the sake of consistency. Perhaps the information should be removed from both pages until its confirmed. I may be able to find something about it my university library. I will check. Brief Google searches yielded this (on pages in German and French): he was a faithful follower of Pepin and count of Paris entrusted with Neustria and Burgundy after the Battle of Tertry. Srnec

Dear Srnec, all elements of my last edit I have taken straight from the "Lexikon des Mittelalters", a standard reference work for Mediaevistic studies, from the articles on "Pippin der Mittlere", "Grimoald", "Drogo", "Karl Martell". Nobert was only mentioned under Pippin. It explicitely stated that Pepin became mayor of Neustria after Berchar's death (one year after his victory at Tetry) and also that he didn't use the title of mayor after Grimoald took over Neustria and that only Charles Martell again called himself mayor. Of course, de facto P. was the mayor in Austria and it is a bit tricky to draw conclusions from titles to offices. Str1977 09:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mayors of the palaces page is probably the most accurate reference for all this information on the internet by far. I clarified (did nto change) something about Drogo and Nordebert based on the Dictionnaire de Biographie Français. Only one question: should the date of Pepin's "reign" in Neustria be changed to begin in 688 or 689 instead of 687 if that's what is says in your resource (though it sounds strange to me)? Srnec 02:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Please don't forget to announce your new articles on medieval subjects here. Thanks. --Ghirla | talk 07:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleph

no, sorry, I don't remember where that was from. Possibly from the article without checking, feel free to ignore it. The Origo says just that Cleph was de beleos, and I don't know what to make of this. We don't know any Beleos or Beleus at any rate. dab (ᛏ) 21:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Battles of Corbridge, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Merovingian template

I reverted it because Neustria is generally mentioned first, before Austria and Burgundy. Str1977 08:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tours

User: SrnecGood point on the crowning of Charlamagne as the ultimate "he who has the power" principle. There was no way that the Pope had the authority to revive the empire of the west, since the regalia of the west had been sent to the Eastern Emperor when the West fell, with the specific note from the first barbarian king of Italy that now there was but one Roman Emperor! Justinian's forays into the West, and the establishment of the authority of the Bzyantines there, had clearly shown there still was a Roman Emperor, even if his authority, as you originally noted in that article, had shrunk, and was minimal. Anyway, nice addition. We have been working on that article the past six months trying to get it completely historically accurate, and I think it is close. It is important to note, as you did, that while for Martel power was sufficient, he could care less about titles, his son and grandson were a little more into the regalia thing! Isn't it ironic that the Pope crowned Charlamagne as "Emperor of the Romans," (supposedly without Charlamagne knowing he would do so, though as you know most historians doubt that) on Christmas Day, 800 a.d.?old windy bear 14:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that, at the beginning of his career, Charles Martel had to raise on Clotaire IV as king, but by 737 there was no need to appoint a successor to Theuderic IV. Clearly, his reign completely changed the dynamics of rulership in Francia, the hallowed Merovingian line was necessary to legitimise his authority early on, but his fighting on behalf of the nation and Christendom apparently changed this, he had legitimised his own rule himself and no king was needed. His sons may have feared that they had not yet proved themselves when they appointed Childeric III in 742. Pepin's assumption of the title of king in 751 was probably an attempt to make the power won by he and his ancestors perminent for his descendants. Srnec 21:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Srnec OUTSTANDING job of tweaking and finishing an article I had been working half a year on; your renaming the sections, and emphasizing his reaching the point at 737 that he did not even bother with the facade of naming a King - so completely did he and Europe know where the power lay. It is especially vital, because in an age, the dark age, basically berift of great figures Martel was one. He pretty much singlehandedly stopped Islamic conquest of Europe while they could have done it, and tried! Great job of integrating the defeat he inflicted on the Muslims at Narbonne specifically, once again, his phalanx withstood their cavalry. He then began the integration of heavy cavalty into Frankish forces, laid the basis for the Carolingian Empire, (sure, Pippin the Elder had conquered a large of it, but he never bothered to actually incorporate it, as Charles did, or christianize those who were Pagan, which Charles also did, uniting them to him with those two most powerful of weapons: religion and taxes! And his brilliant use of the phalanx did, as you put it, make him a brilliant general in an age berift of same. I would argue his surprise use of armoured horsemen plus his planax at Narbonne was also proof of his generalship. (and I added a little to the article also) GREAT JOB,old windy bear 11:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec I just wanted to say what an honor it was to work with you on the Charles Martel article. You are bright, eloguent, (far more of both than I!), but willing to listen to folks like myself. You are a thoroughly nice person in addition to being a thoroughly outstanding historian, and I thank you.old windy bear 21:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec Once again thanks for the help on the Martel article. i consider him such a vital figure in medivial history - do you think, if he, or his grandson, had been in power when the vikings came, they could have stopped them? I actually believe Martel could have, and perhaps Charlemagne. They would have done what no one else thought to -- struck directly at Dane's land, at their homes, ship building ports, and strongholds. What do you think? old windy bear 01:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

It was accidental. There was a spate of vandlism and at first glance, your edits appeared to be that. I will change it back right away.

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Melus of Bari, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

charles martel

Srnec I moved that paragraph which you so rightly observed needed to be in a different location. I moved it to legacy -- please check it, I think it fits there, but if you do not, i will move it again. But I believe you will find it appropriately there. old windy bear 03:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec Hi -- 209.116.79.33 is vandalizing the charles martel article we worked so hard on - can you get Kirill to take a look at it, and bann this idiot.old windy bear 19:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec Hi -- good catches tonight, as usual! I was in the process of reverting them when you did so! Tell me great minds do not think alike! old windy bear 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec GREAT rewording on the Norwich quote! You are a better writer than I am. Thanks! old windy bear 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William of Montferrat

His nickname entered English usage through modern scholars, from the Latin of William of Tyre (and French translations thereof). 12C Montferrat was not Italian-speaking, but Piemonteis, which at that time was still an Occitan dialect. (Montferrat was one of the great troubadour courts.) The Peire Bremon song is the earliest known reference to his nickname. Silverwhistle 08:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William of Tyre calls him "dominus Willelmus marchio, qui cognominatus est Longaspata, filius marchionis Willelmi senioris de Monteferrato". (I'll add this in.)

I've taken the pages on the family under my wing, as I've been an enthusiast on the family (especially Conrad) for some 25 years. I have books on them by Theodor Ilgen, Leopoldo Usseglio, Walter Haberstumpf and Roberto Maestri, as well as most of the primary sources, and lots of CDs of the troubadours they supported!

The family was very closely allied with the Hohenstaufen and Byzantium; there's not actually a huge amount of interest in them in Italy. I'm in the Circolo Culturale I Marchesi del Monferrato (have published articles in their Bollettino). I was told when I was over there in October that even within the region these characters don't get much attention (Montferrat was annexed by Piedmont in 1708, and its history subsumed within that even before Italian unification). Indeed, one of the Circolo founders told me that when he was at school and they studied the Third Crusade, it was all "Riccardo, Riccardo..." (I reassured him that I was always much keener on "Corrado".) The main people I know here in the UK who are interested in the family are Byzantinists, not Italianists.

Silverwhistle 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 37% for major edits and 73% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Gisulf II of Salerno, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 05:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Era

Srnec Good afternoon! I am beginning to work on battles of the early Roman Republic - could I interest you in helping me? My goal literally is to work my way up the Roman ladder, republic to empire, to Eastern Empire, to Carolingians, to the Holy Roman Empire, to the almost unbearably tragic end of the Bzyantine Empire. I enjoy working with you, and thought I would ask? (I think we did a great job on Martel and Tours, and you did a superb job on Charlemagne...old windy bear 19:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

christian or catholic church?

User:Srnec Om the issue of historical accuracy in the Martel article, technically, "Catholic" means universal in latin, (or as close a translation as is possible, but it carries connotations that modern users could misconstrue). At that point, in 734a.d. the split between the Greek and Roman wings of the church had not taken place, and there was only ONE christian church. For that reason, I would suggest that christian is more historically correct, since there was no christian church except that of Rome and Constandinople, which at that point, were feuding, but not broken. Feelings? Srnec, my worry is that people would misunderstand, and think there were more than one church, when at that point in christian history, it was not true. It would be hundreds of years before the two wings of the catholic church split, and hundreds more after that before there were christians who were not "catholic." therefore, historically, for accuracy, I believe the word christian is most approrpriate. Thoughts? (rememeber many of our users are students who assume, and would assume from the word catholic there was more than one church to defend, when in fact, there was only one at that point in history.(unless we are talking about the Copts, a relatively minor sect, which has no bearing on this issue! old windy bear 03:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Srnec Hey my friend, was the new wording okay on Martel!? Do you think it suffices to make the point you were emphasizing, that there were other christians than those in western europe, although "protestants" were three quarters of a milinium off. Was it acceptable?old windy bear 20:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pippin

User:Srnec Hey my friend, please look at the expansion I have done to the article on Pippin the Short. I want your help to polish it off. He had the fortune to be left in a great position by a great man as his father, and is forgotten by history for being sandwiched in between two of history's great men, Charles Martel, and Charlemagne. But he was actually a fairly good ruler, and certainly continued his father's work, and set the table for his son. Help finish it off and give it that Smec touch?old windy bear 03:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Srnec Hey my friend, good catch on Martel not being a surname. (as you well know, it means "Hammer" and essentially was what today we would call a nickname for his merciless hammering of his enemies in battle). Would you take a look at the work I have started on his other son, Carloman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carloman%2C_son_of_Charles_Martel Though he only ruled as major domo of Austrasia and Chrotrud for a few short years, he actually accomplished a startling amount in terms of consolidating the family's power, and strengthening the ties to the Church. I have just started on expanding the article, but wanted your usual magic editing touch and opinion! Thanks!old windy bear 00:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ottonian Renaissance

Check my recent edit, since you're probably the only one interested. Would the start be signalled by the marriage of Otto and Adelaide, 951? --Wetman 10:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VII, Duke of Bavaria

I added a mention of your stub to Portal:Germany/New article announcements. Please add any other relevant articles you create there. Thank you, and happy editing, Kusma (討論) 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar/Lothair

You moved Lothar II of Arles to Lothair II of Italy. I have no thoughts of what he ought to be "of", Early Medieval Italian history means nothing to me. However, you say "Lothair is English spelling". The first book I looked at had four Lothars and a Lotharingia in the index, and no Lothairs at all (it also had several Chlothars, rather than the frenchified Clothaires we see on WP, but that's another story). The The New Cambridge Medieval History uses Lothar prodigously. I could go on, but I think that's enough for now. Thoughts ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desiderio references.

I'm not sure what you require as "credible" references for the surname Remy. As you know, Royal surnames are seldom utilized, ie. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, etc. Aside from the Official record of the Louvre, in Paris, France, there are a couple of other references that have been published. The one I have a complete (except for ISBN#) reference for is:

"The Remy Family in America, 1650 - 1942" compiled by Bonnelle William Rhamy of Fort Wayne, Indiana, produced in 1942, consisting of 526 pages. It is complete with a surname index. It was published by Westward the Families' Publications of Shelton, Washington.

Had Desiderio not been exiled to that area, I don't know whether it would have even been recorded in the records of the Louvre.

Most of the records and sources are from churches. Desiderio's bloodline is established through SAINT REMY, born in 437 AD at Cerny in Lorraine near Leon of Croanne, ancient Picardy (now dept of Ainna),died jan 13 533 AD at rheims. He was the son of Count Emile de Laon Remy and Celinie and brother of Priciple, Bishop of Goismons. he studied literature in which his great virtue and noble birth caused him to succeed at Gannade, the metropolitan seat in 459 AD. where he acquired great knowledge and piety. Authoritative records of his life and works are rare nevertheless, a few of his writings are preserved in the church records he was considered the greatest orator of his time. He was the first Bishop of Rheims and annointed and crowned Clovis, First King of France in 496 AD. He was ennobled in 497."D'or a une tet d'aigle arracha de aable."

Duchy of Benevento

Hi! Thanks for your revertion to Pandulf II article. I have just added some material to Duchy of Benevento sub-article (by they way, you could judge if move the section to a separate article or not). As I am not of English mother tongue, if you've time you can check it and maybe copy edit as your will. Also Battle of Garigliano is new and could interest you. Attilios 09:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where the deleted history has been moved. Can you make it explicit in the article? --Wetman 09:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace

I, Ghirlandajo, hereby award you this **Epic Barnstar** for your contributions to the Wikipedia coverage of mediaeval history. Keep it up!

Thankyou. Srnec 17:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princes of Salerno

Hi! Thanks very very much for your good addings of articles about Salerno Princes. I have a question: do you have infos als about hypati of Gaeta to add? Attilios 10:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaeta#History

In the section of historical hypati, written by me, there's something a mess about dates of reigns. It seems the source I used made a big confusion with names and etc. Can you help? Attilios

Dynasty naming

I'd like an outside opinion, from people who won't be afraid to speak their mind, on the discussion at Talk:House of Dunkeld. Do you have any thoughts on the subject ? Thanks ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Lotharingia vs Lower Lorraine

See discussion on User talk:Witger

CHANGES ON CHARLES MARTEL

User:SrnecI liked your edits, were mine okay? I spent a couple hours last night (old wounds hurting!) working on it, deleting redundent material, condensing, and trying to capture what we had intended from the start, that this was a complex, brilliant man in an age generally berift of them, who basically set the structures in place that carried Europe through the middle ages, and pretty much single handedly is responsible for stemming the Islamic tide into Europe while the Caliphate was able to mount a real invasion, and occupation. Your help is always greatly appreciated - I really work, with study and drafting, to try to make these good articles, and your help in creating them is truly appreciated.old windy bear 22:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article George of Antioch, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alife

I just wrote from scratch the article about Alife. Being not an English mothertongue, it'd probably need some copyedit: if you have time, give it a check. As it was a Norman county, morevoer, if you have info you can add some about it. Let me know. Attilios 21:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"CE" is the abbreviation of the province, used mainly on cars. CE = Caserta, NA = Naples, PI = Pisa, SO = Sondrio, etc. Gaeta has "GA" but it's used only on boats. Attilios 21:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC) P.S.: I don't know how can you so informed about history of Middle Ages Southern Italy. It stuns me. Personally, I do better with condottieri: my latest are Martino della Torre, Malatesta Baglioni and Fabrizio Maramaldo. Give them a check if you're interested (maybe, as usual, they'd need copyediting). Ciaoooo!![reply]

Good article about Ranulf. However, it's longer than Roger II of Sicily's!!! I've a good book about the latter, so one day or anohter I should involv myself in the creation of a good article also. Ciaoo!! Attilios 08:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added some info to Roger II of Sicily. Also added the George of Antiochia article. Copyedit them if needed, and let me know if Roger's entry has still some lacks, I'll try to intervene. Attilios

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Margaret of Navarre (Sicilian queen), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Swanachild

Hi Srnec,

Thanks for the clean up. Why did you remove the link to Regintrud? --imars 06:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to you on your work on the Bavarian dukes. You bring a lot to the topics.--imars 06:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:MausoleumBohemond.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MausoleumBohemond.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice Tidbit historically on Charles the Bald

User:SrnecI had forgotten that, and it really is relevant, since the first "Knights" were created during the reign of Martel, and that edict was vital later on. Also your wording is as usual better than mine - I thought the introduction needed to emphasize your point that he is more than the victor of one battle, he was a brilliant general in an age generally berift of same, a social innovator, and an obviously incredibly complex man - certainly he could have simply named himself King, and not needed the Pope, as his son did - but simply did not bother! Your wording better captures his complexities. Thanks! old windy bear 10:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Moslem

I noticed your comments regarding spelling of this word on someone else's talk page. As I understand it, Moslem either phonetically or when translated sound similar to 'Oppressor' in Arabic, and as a result, it is now considered polite to use Muslim in general conversation. I cannot claim to have read extensively on this subject, but it is something I wondered about a few years ago as well and if I recall arite, this is what my brief research threw up. - Hayter 18:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may sound similiar, but it does not mean that, it means "he who submits to God," or "one who submits to God." old windy bear 10:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tours, Help!

User:Srnec Help! I cannot for some reason get the original article on the Battle of Tours restored. I was trying to add some quotes by Schelgal, and ended up deleting most of the article, which for some reason, my computer won't let me restore - can you restore it to the orgiinal? THANKS, we both worked hard on that article, and this was inadvertant, and I cannot seem to reverse it. THANKS AGAIN! old windy bear 10:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, i finally figured out where I was fouling up! Thanks though! old windy bear 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaitelgrima

To tell you quite frankly, Srnec, I did not have any special information. I reviewed the several references to this and the other Gaitelgrimas found in the Wikipedia and tried to put some order by normalizing them, i.e. accepting the version that seemed the most clearly argued for and referencing it in the other other articles. Pasquale 21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martel

Good work on tightening the opening. You are simply a better writer than I am. old windy bear 18:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

have you read naming conventions for kings and European royalty

As you are medievalist, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Consorts may interest you, among other points there. Marrtel 12:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian I, Archbishop of Mainz

Nice article. Can you point me to any details of his activities in Greece? Andrew Dalby 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of biography articles

Could you please follow the Wikipedia guidelines in naming articles. Ecclesiastical and ruling individuals are quite well directed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) Marrtel 11:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick II of Sicily redirect

Hi! I saw you changed the redirect to Frederick III of Sicily... however, if it's true that it is more correct, you should change at the same time all the occurrences of Frederick II of Sicily referring to Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor (some 100, I seem)! Otherwise, there will remain wrong linkings in all those articles. Let me know. Attilios

I disambiguated ALL the articles, and now Frederick II of Sicily redirects to Frederick III of Sicily. Attilios

Use (actually non-use) of regnal numbers in Middle Ages

I observed that you decided to add your "two cent" to some article stating something with ordinals. Please kindly familiarize yourself with how little medieval they actually used numerals. A consequence is that if one (such as Emperor Frederick II) actually used that, it somewhat illogically had some impact in his other realms too, and in their future. It is quite certain that in Middle Ages, no ruler organized explicitly his regnal numbers for each realm separately. Marrtel 21:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your excellent additions about Mediaeval History Attilios 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: in exchange, I'd like to receive from you the Working Man Barnstar for my working on Frederick's II disambig, and the countless boring things for Italian communes, sights and provinces, sport templates etc. etc. (Today I just edited with new stuff Alphonso II of Naples and his sons' articles. Give them a glance if you've time). Silly and tiiiiired Attilio)

In exchange? Hmm... think you might have got the wrong idea about barnstars. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jagiello

Would you care to visit at Talk:Wladyslaw_II_Jagiellon_of_Poland#Survey. YOu indicated that you support the simple "Jagiello" - now there is a formal listing going on to sign supoirt or opposition. ObRoy 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Sora

Hi! Just added a little entry for Duchy of Sora, with info taken from the Italian edition. Also used it for the History section in the Province of Frosinone. Do you have some time to check what I wrote? Let me know and thanks. user:Attilios.

Polish medieval monarchs naming

Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave , Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

postmodern

the key to remember is that wikipedia is not about your opinion about whether the sydney opera house is or is not postmodern, modern, or otherwise. the evidence is in google and several scholarly articles and books that describe it in that set. when i said it was widely accepted when i reverted, that is what i meant. --Buridan 12:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you might differentiate postmodernism in architecture from postmodernism or postmodernity, but that is just irony. the jenks book about postmodern architecture ties the two together quite closely and it was one of the first to describe postmodern architecture. that people on wikipedia see them as different in some significant way is likely an ideological position. almost all of the early work on postmodernism, prior to david harvey and fredric jameson, which is the period which most cites the sydney opera house, alongside the beauberg center and other places, does not make the differentiation that you claim exists. this is not to say there isn't room for redefinition of terms, perhaps postmodern architecture does mean..... butterfies on walls or somesuch, but it isn't really there in the citations yet. now given that you are the only one that keeps deleting this and there seems to be no one else that is supporting the change, we should take it to discussion before taking action in order to see what the consensus is. random removal of content without discussion is bold and good, unless it is not agreed upon --Buridan 21:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Moroccan Rulers

Hello. It seems that there are a fair many Medieval/Renaissance Moroccan rulers on fr.wikipedia that we don't have. Translating them is easy enough, but I would like to get the article naming sorted. I updated Wattasid today and I wondered if you could have a look and comment on naming of the red-links, if you have any books which name these folks in English. Thanks in advance ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.S.Lewis

Hello Srnec.I thought it only polite to give you a reply but as we are getting badly off topic I thought I would do so on your user page.

I don’t know much about psychoanalysis, though I did read a few of those little paperback editions of Freud as a teenager. Based on this knowledge ,I would say Freud is not scientific ,as his assertions cannot be tested by experiment. He may not even be rational by which I mean logical and internally consistent.

Despite describing myself as a scientific rationalist I do not actually believe strict scientific reductionism is an appropriate tool for all situations. If applied to literary criticism it would certainly lead to some pretty sterile work. I don’t think there is any way to prove whether or not Lewis’s children’s stories have any sexual content, there are clearly some intelligent people who believe they do and probably an equal number who believe they don’t. We probably aren’t going to get much further than that and science isn’t much help. I have my own opinions and I have stated them.I must admit to getting into the debate partly from motives of mischief making but having said that the standard of debate seems to have improved since my contribution.

I have some sympathy for your view that this whole thing has become rather distasteful. I suspect if Lewis himself was still available for comment we might all be treated to some robust Ulster invective.Dave59 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less than significant

Calling the Netherlands "less than significant", says everthing about your obvious bias doesn't it Srnec? I find it very strange those "See also"-sections became "superfluous and ugly" when a link to the history of the Netherlands was added. You didn't seem to have a problem with them before ... care to explain?!

My edit to the Frankish Empire was a fair one,and let me say this: I will not tolerate one case of "Germany + France = Western Europe" as long as I'm active on wikipedia.

Rex 12:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Jogaila vote

I'm curious to know why you oppose Jogaila on the vote taking place at Talk:Jogaila (sorry can't be bothered pasting the diacritics)? I ask, because some of the reasoning you gave for your support for Jagiello also applies to Jogaila. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Sicilian Vespers

Good work! I've been trawling around trying to find out where the battle of La Falconara (Falconaria, Falconeria) was fought; apparently it's a plain near Trapani, but it doesn't appear on modern maps. There's a description of the battle http://www-dot-cronologia-dot-it/storia/aa1282b.htm - link disabled because it's on Wiki blacklist - here, as well as various other events in the later war; my Italian is non-existent, but perhaps you might get something out of it. (I've found a nice history of Frankish Greece 1301-1460 online and am mining that.) Choess 03:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick! Thanks for translating it and creating the article. Choess 04:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne

Thank you for your excellent work on the article.CyrilleDunant 20:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Srnec 15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villehardouin

Your point was well taken, Srnec. I have now adjusted the redlinks I made. They now point to Isabella of Villehardouin and Margaret of Villehardouin, Lady of Mategrifon. I will go ahead and make stubs on these two, unless you happened to have articles ready! I have not adjusted the other Villehardouin names, e.g. William II Villehardouin, though they ought to be changed really. Andrew Dalby 17:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Sarcophagus of William I of Sicily.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarcophagus of William I of Sicily.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ciao! I've saved the former image, as it was at least GFDL. As for help, if you've time, can you copyedit Bianca Maria and Francesco I Sforza, and Astorre Manfredi? I don't know if you're intereseted in Italian Renaissance, but these are outstanding figures that were of course understimated here by English-language users devoted only to fill the space here with jerkish wrestling, TV-trash and baseball entries... My next projects are to improved Leon Battista Alberti and Cesare Borgia, and Renaissance popes. Ciao, thanks again and compliments for good work as usual!!--Attilios 10:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infante Fernando, Count of Flanders

Hi. How can it be anachronistical? The title of Infante is used in the Iberian peninsula since the 10th century. In Iberia, a Prince is almost always the heir to the throne and has to have a propper principality inside the Kingdom to be prince. This guy was born Infante Fernando of Portugal (and was it for the rest of his life). He became Count consort of Flanders by marriage to Jeanne, Countess of Flanders. I do not object if the article is moved to Infante Ferdinand or Infante Ferrand. As for the historical relevance: Fernando forced his father to give him the Templar Knights lands near today's Castelo Branco, Portugal. He founded Vila Franca da Cardosa, that would later become Castelo Branco (a distric capital today). In 1214 he gave the town to the Templars, receiving half of the income of the lands and under the condition that the Templars populated the zone, building a castle. This donation was confirmed by a papal bull by pope Innocence III in 1245. The depart of Fernando to Central Europe created a small wave of Portuguese merchants (and immigrants) to the region. As you see, he has equal importance in both countries. What do you suggest? Joao pais 05:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title "Prince of Portugal" doesn't exist at all. There are several titles of "prince" in Portugal, all connected with the heir to the throne: Heir Prince, Prince of Brazil, Prince of Beira and Prince Royal, all in different periods of history and none attributed to Fernando. As for the title "infante", it is quite formal indeed. As all sons of Portuguese monarchs that are not heirs to the throne, Fernando is styled His Highness the Infante D. Fernando, Lord of Vila Franca da Cardosa, Count of Flanders by marriage, where infante is the equivalent of the common English prince. You are only thinking in the British royalty, in which the use of the title "prince" is recent. In Iberia the informal use remotes to the 10th century, and the formal use to the 12th. If you see pages in the Spanish and Portuguese wikipedia you may find that infante is quite common in articles of Middle Ages' Iberian princes. What you may argue is that the title Count of Flanders implies that he doesn't use the title Infante of Portugal. Anyway, I've created the article myself, and at the time I decided to use the title Count of Flanders (a consort title) to disambiguate from other Fernandos of Portugal. I prefer Infante Ferdinand, Count of Flanders, or Infante Fernando of Portugal, Count of Flanders to clarify that he is from Portugal. The reason for this is the fact that he is only a consort of a non-sovereing fiefdom. Ferdinand, Count of Flanders seems to indicate that he was a local, a member of the family of Philipp of Alsase, or a European noble to whom was given a county. By the way, I wont revert if you move it again. The problem with this thing is that the convention doesn't specify what to do with royals of a country that received a title in a foreign state or used the title as consort. Sorry for the long text. Cheers! Joao pais 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

The announced mediation, concerning the Charlemagne article, will take place soon, you are invited to participate. See: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Rex 18:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ][reply]

Srnec What is this foolishness? This poor guy is basically trying to force original research on everyone else? I have been out of touch, but what sources does he have, other than his opinions? old windy bear 11:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis the Pious

Dear Srnec, I have replied on the List's talk page. Re your comments on the aforementioned article. I can tell you that that certain user has a bit of history of adding dodgy stuff. So don't bother. I don't want to say more out here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Charlemagne

Hi, I was just reading your comments on Talk:Charlemagne and had some comments myself, although I wanna stress beforehand that I agree fully with your main point that one can clearly speak of a Germany long before the Pragmatic sanction.

while your remark that the Kingdom of Germany was not identical to the HRR is correct, it is of no relevance for the dispute in question since the Low Countries were part of the Regnum Teutonicum. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
re your remark that the Treaty of Verdun marks the birth of Germany, I found it interesting to see that on de:Vertrag von Verdun the assessment is that contemporary historians do not think so any more. And I think that makes sense, because as I understand the Treaty of Verdun, it was only a starting point of a development over the course of several centuries that culminated in a German state (for instance the empire is called "HRR of German nation" only after the Imperial Reform in 1512).
an aside re Luxembourg: I find the status of Luxembourg between 1815-1867 very puzzling. On the one hand, the King of the Netherlands was Grand Duke of Luxembourg by way of personal union, on the other hand it was closely integrated into the German Confederation (Customs, "Reichsfestung Luxembourg"). I was trying to adapt Template:History of the Low Countries accordingly, maybe you have some thoughts as well.
And for Switzerland, if you trace the history of each and every canton, it can be easily shown that it is a "breakaway nation from the German empire". And a very fascinating history, I might add.

Crix 02:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, thanks for your reply. I basically agree with you, I just have one point concerning Lux and another concerning Bohemia:

the way I understand Lux history, it was an Imperial estate of the HRE until it became a part of the Burgundian Netherlands, and was affected by the Pragmatic Sanction as well. Then it was a part of the Southern Netherlands (or whatever the Hapsburg part was called), which was technically still a part of the HRE, but only very loosely so. I guess legally you're right. Be that as it may, the situation post 1815 is very complex. I have been in a discussion with User:Str1977 on Template talk:History of the Low Countries trying to agree on the best way of having the template reflect these situations. Pls. have a look.
the discussion on Charlemagne at some point mentioned Bohemia, which puzzled me as well. I have left a note on User talk:Str1977#Luxembourg/Bohemia regarding this and would like to refer you there, in order to avoid duplications. (I'm avoiding posting on Talk:Charlemagne until the situation has calmed down a bit.

Crix 02:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick correction of Crix's post: Luxemburg was "an Imperial estate of the HRE" not "until it became a part of the Burgundian Netherlands" but beyond that, until it was annexed by the French Republic.

Merger note

Dear Srnec, I have seen your merger note on some of Germanus' recent creations and I must disagree. There is no basis for merging this as it was only created by splitting a viable article. I changed it into a redirect, but now Germanus is using your merge tag as an excuse to revert me. Please have a look into Monarchic rulers of Germany, 1806 onwards (what a silly title) and [[[Kings of East Francia / Germany]] (hardly better). Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Str1977,

Instead of calling the titles of articles I've created silly, you might want to use arguments in the discussion developing on the talk page of List of German monarchs‎.Cheers,

Rex 10:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military History Coordinator/Assistant Coordinator Positions

Srnec Greetings my friend, I don't know if you are interested, but there are elections for the military history project coordinator and assistant coordinators ongoing. I believe Kirill should be reelected as coordinator, and have nominated myself for one assistant spot, but there are six open, and if you are interested, I will nominate you (I am going to ask Ewulp as well, you both would be good). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/August_2006 is the link if you are interested in going and looking, or commenting on the current nominations. If you are interested yourself, let me know, and I will nominate you, I think your research and writing skills are superior, and I personally find you a pleasure to work with. I wonder if Angus knows about this, he is another good candidate. old windy bear 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jogaila

Hi there. Despite a whopping victory for the name Jogaila on the previous vote, the Polish users have got upset and called yet another vote. They want to get it moved back to the old unpopular name Władysław II Jagiełło. If you are interested in stopping this, you'll need to cast your vote again. Sorry for all this tediousness. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take note that the "whooping victory" was in fact a 16:16 parity. Despite that the article was moved anyway, in violation of wiki rules and procedures. Now is the chance to repair that. Besides, Calgacus is also lying about the name - the one we propose to move it to is Wladyslaw II Jagiello, without diacritics. And that name is at least 10 times more popular with English scientific literature than Jogaila. //Halibu tt 08:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lochmaben Fair

This article is about a battle on Anglo-Scottish borders and takes its place in the Battles of Scotland section, along with others of the same kind that I have written. It also describes an important episode in the political relations between England and Scotland in the late Middle Ages, and the decline and fall of a Scottish noble house. It forms a small part of my wider attempt to fill the gaps in Scottish medieval history, and to correct the quite enormous number of errors I have encountered on the subject in these pages. You are at liberty to flush it altogether, if you wish; but stop corrupting what I have done with your puerile and half-witted tags. If you have knowledge of the subject in question-which I assume you do not-I will deal with any specific issues you may care to raise. Otherwise please continue to devote your talents to lists of central European monarchs and the like. Rcpaterson 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following originally appeared on User talk:Rcpaterson, but was removed:

As to your article: do you realise it is not accessible because no other artilce links to it? I am tagging it so as to draw attention to this fact. If I could correct it, I would. I can't, you say as much when you admit that you expect I know little about the subject. I should also note that I take exception to your attitude in calling the tag "puerile" and "half-witted". It is neither, but your comments were both. I devote my time to many things, a list of central European monarchs is not one of the primary ones (though it has demanded attention of late). Fix your article yourself so that it need not be any longer "corrupted" by necessary tags. Srnec 02:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you this has now been abandoned; a great pity. Anyway, back to your lists. Rcpaterson 07:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military History Task Force

Hello, I see that you've made some edits on Italian history, and was wondering if you'd be able to join a new Military History WikiProject Task Force opening up on Italian military history. It will just be a small division of the main project, but it will be devoted to helping the fairly sad Italian history articles on Wikipedia right now, (for instance, all articles on their WWII tanks are stubs), and we need a few editors before we can actually create the project. Thank you for any support.-KingPenguin 11:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Aquinas

Just a quick note about Thomas Aquinas - this past July, you expanded on an introduction to the Thomas Aquinas#Epistemology section of the article. It turns out that the material you quoted did, in fact, come from the Summa Theologiae, but what you quoted was one of the "objections" that Aquinas was about to refute in that article. Another user pointed out the error, and I've changed the introduction to reflect Aquinas's true thoughts. Just thought you might like to know... - David aukerman ^talk 02:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote concerning Scottish monarchs

There is currently a vote going on regarding the names of early Scottish monarchs at Talk: Cináed I of Scotland. Your contribution would be most welcome. --Nydas 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our Alfons(o?

Hi! Finally managed to add some news to one of the most underdeveloped articles here, Alfonso V of Aragon. As usual, maybe you'll be able to give it a glance and correct my poor English. I included especially detailed news abaout the 1420s-1430s war with Louis III of Anjou, and it could be a good idea to find a way to make it recognizable also in the History of Naples, in some way. Ciao and compliments for your excellent work (I just noticed your work about southern Italy topics, I'm just back from a 1.5 month stay in Gaeta!).

Bye. Attilios 23:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carolingian genealogical cruft

I see that he's still at it. I don't have an issue with having children added to an article, so long as what's done matches reliable sources, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren is just silly. I changed Boso of Provence to match Riché. I don't care which is right, but between a website and reliable sources there's no argument. I'll have a go at cleaning some of this up later in the week. All the best ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—and wherever—you'd like:

Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
Working on featured-level articles? We have some advice for nominators, and an A-Class review process to help check high-quality articles.
Want to help with specific requests for assistance? Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 09:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Castilian monarchs Disambiguation link repair - You can help!

Hi,

The article List of Castilian monarchs links to a disambiguation page, [[Castile]], in the opening sentence. If you have a moment, could you please repair that disambiguation link by specifying which Castile (or Castiles, perhaps?)is referred to:

Thanks for your time & trouble --Ling.Nut 23:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Naples

Help again needed for copyediting in Joan II of Naples, Muzio Attendolo and Giovanni Caracciolo. Ciao and thanks in advance!! Attilios 15:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castilian Civil War

On 11 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Castilian Civil War, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the article. Enjoyed the read and the great images -- Samir धर्म 17:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 20:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tempesta

Nice article. Some questions: when you say "Philip I of Taranto took reinforcements and was successful", at what was he successful? It isn't clear. Wasn't it Philip who retreated toward Fuecchio, Peter being dead on the field? And was Peter Count of Gravina as well as of Eboli? Choess 02:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It just seemed to me that his body wasn't likely to be lost except in the chaos of a melee. There's an English translation of Villani here, which says "In this battle there died M. Piero, brother of King Robert, and his body was never found...The prince [Philip] fled with all the rest of his followers, some towards Pistoia and some towards Fucecchio and some by the Cerbaia." Foundation for Medieval Genealogy also calls him Conte di Gravina, although they don't supply a citation for that particular fact. Search for "Pietro Conte di Gravina" on Google and some Italian sources turn up as well. Choess 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. There's supposed to be an article on Montecatini in "Römische Historische Mitteilungen 40 (1998) 237–288", which presumably (from the length) goes into some detail, but I don't have convenient access to that journal. Choess 04:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fucecchio lies about ten miles south of Montecatini, at the junction of the Guisciana (now Usciana) and the Arno. Looking on aerial photos today, much of the area between the two towns, on the east side of the Usciana, appears to be undeveloped, ditched-and-drained marshes. This page suggests the marshes were even larger and more lake-like during the medieval era. Evidently part of the Guelphic army was driven into there to drown. Choess 03:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard I William of Gascony

That seems to be a sentence fragment so it's hard to decipher it...do you have any more of the text? It looks like Bernard is being affected by womanly deceits and evil tricks etc, but I'm not totally sure. Adam Bishop 04:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, did you get it from here? That page might have bungled it, I see they have some other strange formatting. But fortunately they give the reference in the MGH, so I can look it up tomorrow. Adam Bishop 04:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as I suspected, that sentence is a fragment, a couple of nested ablative absolutes with the main clause following it. The most recent edition is in the Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis, vol. 129, book III, chapter 38, pg. 160 - "At Bernardo, insidiis muliebribus, maleficis artibus corpore fatescente, vitae privato, Santius, frater eius, dux Wasconum extitit." I assume that webpage had been copied and pasted from Word, which autocorrected privato to private. Not that I am particularly competent to judge these matters, but Ademar's Latin is not great, which makes it hard to translate literally...but it obviously means he grew weak and died because of womanly plots and evil tricks, and then his brother Sancho became duke of Gascony. Fortunately, there is also a recent French translation, by Yves Chauvin and Georges Pon (Adémar de Chabannes, Chronique, III, 39, pg. 250), which says "Bernard, privé de la vie par des intrigues féminines, la santé ruinée par de néfastes artifices, Sanche, son frère, devint duc de Gascogne." Hope this helps! Adam Bishop 23:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badheads

Ciao! I wrote some biographies of House of Malatesta members. Can I ask your help for the usual copyedit (really tell me if my repeated requests annoy you, I won't offend!)? Bye and thanks in advance! --Attilios 21:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arborea

Can ask your help for Arborea? I explain: there's a huge lot of red links, and in recent times a stupid user removed ALL the giudicato di Arborea section, I think because he disliked all those redlinks... Bye and thanks (PS: Emilia of Gaeta was a surprise for me also)!! --Attilios 09:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought that the Dizionario degli Italiani contained some of them... I'm afraid I don't know other sources at the moment. Thank you anyway!! --Attilios 10:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Principality of Achaia

Good work on the Prices of Achaia. Just an idea: The French wikipedians have made a nice table (better than the one we had here). Check fr:Principauté d'Achaïe.--FocalPoint 06:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a "Ferdinand I"

The Catalan nationalism article mentions a "Ferdinand I, a Castillian", who was chosen as ruler, before John II of Aragon. I couldn't see a mention of this person at Ferdinand I. Is there an article on him ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hi!

I saw your interest in editing, among others, pages related to the Byzantine history. That is why I thought to inform you about the History of Greece Wikiproject. The project is new and it definitely needs the contributions of users with appetite for initiatives. You can visit the main page and the various sections, most of which are stil underdevelopped; if you decide that you wish to participate and contribute, we'll be happy to see you there. Cheers!--Yannismarou 08:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or are you more interested in a WikiProject:Italy? Check [1] and good work. --Attilios 10:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Italy

Here is the provisional page for the Project. Tell us if you are interested in. Bye. --Attilios 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

License tagging for Image:Trier Balduinbrunnen Balduin von Luxemburg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Trier Balduinbrunnen Balduin von Luxemburg.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Baldwin, Archbishop of Trier

Thank you for contributing this article, which I have again announced at the Germany portal page P:DE/A. We now have a project to go with the portal, the Germany WikiProject, which is still new - if you have any ideas what we should do or want to help, you'd be welcome. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 09:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leo of Tripoli

Hi, Srnec, and thanks for all your hard work. I was attempting to trace the article about the Byzantine renegade Leo of Tripoli and can't find it anywhere. How can it be that Wikipedia lacks an entry about this legendary pirate? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor

Ciao! I've recently done a grat effort to improve that which was a really shitty article on such in important figure. However, I seem something is still missing. Do you have some further material to add? If you've time, of course... Or maybe you could simply check my Italianized English language... Thanks in advance and good work. --Attilios 14:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks! I didn't surf on Henry III before, I've just looked at your fine additions to it this year. OK, I'll save me to such a task (I used really spare and confused sources!) and wait with anxiety your article on Henry V, the big traitor. I could always add something from the beautiful "History of Rome in the Middle Ages" by Gregorovius: being him a German, he devoted much space to the Emperors fact, also to their German things. Just a note: you removed the red link to Saxon War... there's an article on it in the German version, so image we should also have it here. Bye, thanks and good work. --Attilios 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded also Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor^[1] and Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor. I'm getting steam!!! Give them just a check if you have time (the language should be decent, they're a re-elaboration of 1911 Britannica). Bye and good work.

Thanks for Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor. --Attilios 16:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

^ PS: have you news of the Cencio Frangipane attempting on Pope Gregory VII on Christmas 1075?

Frederick, Archbishop of Mainz

Thank you for contributing this article! I have announced it at Portal:Germany/New article announcements and on the Germany portal. If you create more articles on German archbishops, please announce them there and consider joining our Germany WikiProject. If you want to help out writing the missing articles about archbishops of Mainz, you might also want to check out the Mainz task force. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 08:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Srnec already joint us without explicit writing! Welcome ! --Symposiarch 10:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Nerio II et Antonio II Acciaiolis fratribus ducibus Athenarum

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article De Nerio II et Antonio II Acciaiolis fratribus ducibus Athenarum, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:De Nerio II et Antonio II Acciaiolis fratribus ducibus Athenarum. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Brianyoumans 18:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso, Robert of Capua, and Ranulf of Alife

Thank you for your kind words regarding my map. I do not understand the reference to ' "Southern Italy circa 1000" not showing up '. I would like to investigate if you tell me where to look.

Regarding the edits, I was just trying to put some flow into the article, in part by occasionally removing what I thought were digressions, deleting placenames I could not verify (e.g. Amitenno and Ceprani in the Alfonso article) and also changing some of the modern-day phrases (e.g. "mopped up") to more formal wordings.

I did review my edits on the 4 articles (Alfonso of Hauteville, Robert II of Capua, Ranulf II of Alife, and Roger II of Sicily) and they looked reasonable -- at least to me : ) . I did re-insert the note about Ranulf appearing at Lothair's coronation back into Ranulf's article. You are right -- it is appropriate. You are welcome to change anything I added or to re-insert anything I deleted. These are very good and much-needed articles and you are to be congratulated for creating them! MapMaster 15:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I go to the "Italy 1000 AD.svg" page at Commons, it shows up, but if I click on the image shown there, my one computer's browser crashes and my other asks if want to open or download the file. Does that help? MapMaster 05:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still unable to see Commons:Image:Italy 1000 AD.svg? I had User:Attilios check it out and he says that he can see it. Perhaps you could go to my user page and look at all my maps there and let me know what you see and don't see. I'm wondering whether your browser may be having a problem with SVG files. Thanks, MapMaster 04:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Agilofing Dukes of Bavaria

I know you did some work on the early dukes of Bavaria, especially cleaning up the legendary Agilofing dukes Theodo I-V. I just wanted to let you know that someone went and added Garibald I of Bavaria, Tassilo I of Bavaria, and Garibald II of Bavaria, as well as Theodon I and Theodon. These I moved to standard naming and redirected the Theodon to Theodo. I thought you might be interested in looking at the Garibalds and Tassilo I.imars 08:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

There is Wikipedia:Requests for translation, but I don't know how effective that is, or how to tie it into the medieval project. You could create a project subpage for translations, though. I have noticed the same thing recently, for example the German Wikipedia has much better info about Roman and canon law. Adam Bishop 06:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clothar

What's wrong with Clothar? It you discount the false positives, it's almost exactly as common as Chlothar and less shocking to the reader.

No, I don't believe you are a German nationalist; I know nationalists. I do think that you have been reading scholarship influenced by Germany, as whoever wrote the article has clearly been reading French. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diz. Biografico

Frankly, I have no idea. It looks a bit a weird category. Don't know. But keep good work as usual (my last additions in history field are Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor, Emperor Sigismund, Obizzo II d'Este, Azzo VIII d'Este, Niccolò II d'Este. For the first two, I merged 1911 stuff with the few additions in the previsou (poor) articles. Maybe, if you've time, you can give them a glance. Bye. --Attilios 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few remaining comments on the Duchy of Vasconia/Gascony

Since year's end, i've been too busy to work on Wikipedia, but I feel we left a couple of points in the air, which i will address here

First, on the value of Marcel Rouche's book: For those of us without access to JSTOR, i've found two other reviews of Rouche (in french, but open) (review by Pierre Riche@Annales) and (review by Gerard Moyse@Bibliotheque de la Ecole de Chartes ) for a clear view of the nature of the (still) main controversial point in the book. The book has, though, stood the test of time, and appears again and again in almost all the recent authors I've perused, used as a guide for the events in Aquitaine (f.i. Wood (1994) and -more critically- Larrea (1998)). Thus is why it seems to have become the "must read" book on Aquitaine and the Merovingian era.

A seemingly very common view of the book can be found in the words of french arqueologist Françoise STUTZ, footnote 3)

La première partie relate les événements historiques en une synthèse rigoureuse. On ne peut en revanche être d’accord avec l’analyse culturelle écrite en seconde partie.

I have tried to buy the book (second hand) but it seems unavailable at the moment. Another book which has poped-up frequently in my research and might be of your interest is Renee Mussot-Goulard's "Les princes de Gascogne" (CTR, 1982, ISBN 2904159002), also sadly unavailable. But perhaps you can get then thru interlibrary loans. There are more recent books y the same author on similar subjects

I'll try to add some data for Lupus_I_of_Aquitaine when i'm free for a while Wllacer 09:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WikiProject France

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help in edit war

Can I ask your help in the poll to dirime this edit war at Castelseprio (see talk:Castelseprio)? I've stumbled in somebody with awful style layout, nad probably one of those guys getting stuck like children in their version of any article. Bye and good work. --Attilios 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need your input

Srnec, I need your input on the question of whether the spelling of Bohemond I of Antioch should be "Bohemund" or "Bohemond". Can you please chime in on the talk page?? Also, please look at what is now Logudoro/Torres? I had moved it to Giudicato of Logudoro, but an apparently-avengeful user has reverted all my moves in the past month. I would value your input as an expert in the field. Thanks, MapMaster 03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of German monarchs

Dear Srnec, I have no idea. I could only provide some German lanugage text books/works of reference. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a look into this and related edits by this editor. What shall we do? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

da Carrara

D'u have anything about Jacopo and Uberto da Carrara (or Ubertino)? Bye and good work. --Attilios 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd find the dates of death at Carraresi... the most important is what there is listed as Jacopo da Carrara. Also Marsilio da Carrara had some relevance. Thanks and good work. --Attilios 21:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranuccio

Do you have birt/death data for Ranuccio Farnese il Vecchio? Bye and good work. --Attilios 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You could also give a glance to my fresh Bianca Lancia article. As for Carraresi, keep attention of Jacopo and Giacomo spelling, I seem there are at least three of them. Bye and good work. --Attilios 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:AlfonsoVIII.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AlfonsoVIII.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 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 16:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

List of Frankish Kings

Dear Srnec, may I request your input to the recent debate/conflict at Talk:List_of_Frankish_Kings#Revert_disimprovements. Thanks. BTW, I like the quote of the day. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count of Orléans

I'm sure that Count of Orléans must be missing some Merovingian counts, but apart from Willachar, I can't find any. Can you help? Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some new page patrolling, I came across Lyderic Le Buc. Any thoughts? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never sure either, but the page you found was much better so I just redirected it. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 18 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Otto Orseolo, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors of the palaces

Dear Srnec, thanks for your message. However, I must disagree with you. The title of these people was not "Mayor of the Palaces" but "Major Domus", Mayor of the Palace. The Domus is not a physical house as such but the household of the King. Originally there was one household for one king. Later, the stable sub-kingdoms developed with one mayor for Neustria and one for Austria (and for a while one for Burgundy) but there was still one Mayor for one Palace. As long as the offices are separate there is no problem at all, as every mayor was mayor of a palace. Your argument would only apply to the period when one man (Pippin, Charles and Pippin) combined all mayoral offices. However, at the time he was actually either the Mayor of the one King or he was the mayor of Neustria and the mayor of Austria in personal union. Either way "Mayor of the Palace" is the correct title. Compare the German: Hausmeier ... Häusermeier (Häuser being the plural of Haus) does not exist. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your posting, but you are still wrong: Indeed there is a plural involved but it is the plural "mayors" - we have mayors of the palace, but no mayor of the palaces, just as it is "prime ministers" but not "primes ministers". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that "prime minister" is not the perfect analogy. However the title is "prime minister" as "maior domus" is. "Prime minister of Ontario" corresponds to "Maior domus/Mayor of the palace of Neustria" - "The premiers of the provinces of Canada" to "Maior domus/Mayor of the Palace of the Frankish kingdoms". How do I distinguish? Well, there is no real need to distinguish in a morphological way ... the context is enough. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy! "Danny Williams and Jean Charest are the premiers of the provinces of Québec and Newfoundland"? And I would say "Ebroin and Wulfhoad are the mayors of the palace of the kingdoms of Neutria and Austria". In either case we could take out the middle bit containing province and kingdom. So yes, I think "Ebroin and Wulfhoad are the mayors of the palace of Neutria and Austria" is correct. Maybe the other version is clearer but either is correct. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Another Giudicati?

Srnec, I see you continue your excellent work on Medieval Italian history, including an article on the Giudicato of Agugliastra. If you have any information I can draw upon, I would be happy to craft a map for that article. Let me know, and keep up the good work, MapMaster 03:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Matilda of Canossa on throne.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Matilda of Canossa on throne.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold use

The MoS quite specifically states that the bold section should be the person's name. The names of the Kings of France, in historiography at least, are [Name] [Ordinal] of France - the shortened [Name] [Ordinal] is only used when already disambiguated. The point remains that of France should be bolded in the first line since that is part of the person's name. Indeed, in some cases, it is necessary to disambiguate immediately - Louis X of France was also King of Navarre, but was not Louis X of Navarre; your actions risk sowing confusion. Nor do I understand why you seem intent on ignoring the Manual of Style - it is there for a reason, and I don't understand why you refuse to follow it due to 'redundancy'. As for the bold linking - fine, I won';t do that. I reasoned that since you clearly wanted the link in the first paragraph, it could stay there. If you don't, then that's fine. But I really don't understand your attitude. Michael Sanders 16:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does sow confusion. You should be clarifying immediately to the reader (yes, the reader, the hypothetical person for whom these articles are written) precisely who the person was. Saying simply that he was 'Louis X' at the top, and then a bit further down clarifying that he was Louis I of Navarre is unacceptably slipshod. Moreover, the MoS states that it will be slightly different form - that would mean it could be Henri Ier of France, as opposed to Henry I of France, or Louis IX, King of France, as opposed to Louis IX of France. But leaving out the dynastic derivation of the person altogether, and merely expecting the reader to work it out later from an unbolded reference to him being King of France (yes, I know any reader above 7 years old will be able to work that out. But 1) it's still important to be precise and 2) there are readers under 7 years old), is not slightly different - it's pretty major as a difference. The explanation of who the person was - the main differing forms of the name, and the full main name, should be as close to the top as possible - per MoS. Michael Sanders 11:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this then: if there is a need to disambiguate because the King ruled another major territory under a different form of name (e.g. John II of France/I of Burgundy, Philip V of France/II of Navarre, Henry III of France/(I) of Poland); if there is no need, don't bother. Okay? Michael Sanders 11:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is for the opening to conform to the Manual of Style, and for effective disambiguation to be applied from the beginning. I might accuse you of opposing for opposition's sake, also, you know, as well as stirring up trouble - you have so far registered your contempt for the article media, monarchical infoboxes, and dynastic templates, in the face of general convention. Why is that? And, is there anything about the French monarchical articles that you like? Michael Sanders 20:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As seen in MoS, "The subject of the article should be mentioned at the first natural place that it occurs in the prose, preferably in the first sentence, and should appear in bold face. The name of the subject is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations. For example, in the article "United Kingdom":

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom or UK) occupies part of the British Isles in northwestern Europe ..."

As you can see, what you consider 'redundancy' is mandated by the example (since, based on your arguments, 'the readers can guess from it being in the British Isles that it includes Great Britain'): the first bolded name will be the commonly accepted full name of the subject, which in the case of monarchs is who the what of where. Followed by the 'variants' the MoS speaks of: 'Louis I of Navarre', 'Charles the Wise', whatever.

I've stopped bold-linking, since you've pointed it out - I'm using the format as I laid out in Charles V of France when no other major expected title was held, and Louis X of France when there was. I would write up all the headings like that myself - if I trusted you not to revert it. Michael Sanders 20:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you just went over the 3RR limit in Charles V of France. Pretty much why I'm not trusting you enough to sort out the other articles. Michael Sanders 20:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, definitely four reverts within 24 hrs. I could show you the diffs if you like. The point is, you have broken the rules in your defiance of the Manual. I haven't. Michael Sanders 21:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reported you: but here's the breakdown of 4 full or partial reverts in less than 24 hours:

User:NAME_OF_USER reported by User:YOUR_NAME (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 06:36, 13 April
1st revert: 07:01, 14 April
2nd revert: 19:47, 14 April to previous: [2]
3rd revert: 21:44, 14 April to previous: [3]
4th revert: 21:52, 14 April

Comments

I haven't gone over 3 reverts in 24 hrs: partial or full. And I fail to see why a 'democratic' solution is required to a pretty clear point in the MoS, and the necessity for clear presentation of the subject. Michael Sanders 21:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, I completely agree with you concerning Michaelsander's behavior: for months now, he has been harassing me and reverting every single edit I do to articles, just because he wants to impose his own point of view. Whenever I clean up articles from OR or whatever, he's always behind me to blindly revert everything, always trying to twist the rules and to put forward his own "personal" (and often very different from the general consensus) interpretations of the rules. He never cares if he violates the "NPOV", "reliable source" and "No original research" rules, however he's always the first to report 3RRV, even if they are imaginary or not so obvious, and of course he never mentions that he is constantly gaming the 3RR rule in every single article he touches. He is always provoking edit wars, and his favorite technique is always to go up to 3 reverts, pushing his opponents to the fourth one, and then rushing to the 3RR notice board to try to get his opponents blocked, so that the next day he can quietly revert again to his version: of course, he'll never discuss with others before reverting.

We have to do something, because editing has become tiresome now. We can no longer tolerate such a person here, he was warned and blocked many times, involved in many POV and revert disputes, I think no admin will have difficulties to see his behavior is diruptive, so now we really have to do something.Folken de Fanel 22:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French kings

I fully agree with you, but I too am at a loss with how to deal with it. john k 21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French monarchs

I may not have enough time to get seriously involved, but I'll check it out.

Aldrichio 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Would you like to tell me where? Michael Sanders 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To break 3RR, one must make more than 3 reverts in a period of 24hrs. I have not done so, having only made 3 reverts (as have you, both there and at James I). Michael Sanders 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queens

Hallo Srnec, what do think of this situation? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Could you also give your opinion on my solution of placing "Roman"(linked)-"German King"(linked) in the succession boxes? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had we found a conclusion to this issue. From what I see WP currently sometimes uses "KotR" and sometimes "RGK", linking sometimes to the KotR article, sometimes to the proper list? Str1977 ^(talk) 18:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anguillara and others

I made many new articles about Italian middle-Ages and Renaissance figures. Maybe you're interested in them, and/or want to clean up them (most notable: Braccio da Montone, Anguillara family). You can see them in my contributions page... Let me know and good work as usual. --Attilios 21:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert of Spoleto

What source did you copy from? Caravale? RandomCritic 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip III of Navarre

Hallo Srnec, you changed the year of birth from 1301 to 1306. I found no outher sources for this date. Could you tell me perhaps the source. Viele Grüße aus Deutschland DALIBRI.

I found sources in this site : Philippe d'Êvreux or Felipe III, king of Navarre Papydenis 12:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need some post-Carolingian expertise

Greetings. I'm trying to get the main Middle Ages page reworked and you seem to be the guy to help out with the disorders of the 9th and 10th centuries. Any interest in helping?brandon cohen 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that was fast, thanks brandon cohen 06:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hey can you edit Henry Ford summary please thanks

Giacomo Boncompagni

Ciao! Happy that you surfed on that article. I check often your contributions, to see if I can give a help. I wikified Arechi II of Benevento recently. Do the same with me new creations, if you've time, as my English, as you noticed, is not the best. Bye and good work as usual!!! --Attilios 22:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, your word about proto-feudal Italy is very good. As for me, I hate that ecclesiastical stuff, because people copy paste it from that horrendous encyclopedia, with the result we have 4000 words about that unrelevant stuff, and often ridiculously short section about true history. But, in general, it's not a devoted effort. I remove it when I found it by surfing around in search of other. I add stuff in many fields, from trains to art, soccer, cities etc, but it's strue most of my add regard history, especially Italian Renaissance one. You'd be maybe also interested to Principate of Piombino. I will try to translate short biographies of the Princes from the Catalan wikipedia, which has funny articles about ALL minor Italian feudal lords (like the Alidosi ones, which I used as sources for articles here). Maybe you'd be able to add something more from your Italian Characters dictionaries. Let me know, and, as usual... good work! --Attilios 22:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annunciation (van Eyck)

There's an edit war ongoing with a frantic, Wiki-illiterate editor who doesn't accept my Wikifying of his (her?) article. Help is needed to reach a consensus about a decent version will kept here. Can you help? Thank you. --Attilios 11:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

As a common practice, I award barnstars on user talk pages. This is to respect any particular formatting a user may have. If you had checked there talk page, I regularly engage in discourse with this editor. Thanks for the concern though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County of Empúries

In the ages of the County of Empúries Spain didn't exist and nobody spoke spanish there. In Empúries were spoken previous languages and catalan (about 10th century). So what is not correct is to include "Ampurias" that is the spanish translation (that is only used by the spanish history, imposed basically during the Franco's dictatorship when catalan language was banned).

The English-language publications are based in the spanish books that were used during the Franco's dictatorship when the catalan language was banned. And during the dictatorship the spanish translate all the names of the cities to spanish as it sounds. The correct is to use the name of the place or the name that you use to use in every language. But no to take the spanish (banning catalan) translations as the correct ones. When I talk in catalan I use the catalan name of the city or the original one. I don't take the word that use the swedish or the finnish to talk about a russian city.

--Saltamarges 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You include an interesting reference. I'll read carefully. (In my first quickly read I've seen Their newly expanding cities of Bordeaux, Toulouse, Lyon, Marseille, Narbonne, that are the french names for this cities. So the catalan ones must be used too ;-).

There are a lot of books sourced in spanish books that use "wrong" names. Generally talking, I think that this should be changed, and this is what I'm trying to do.

I've looked some of your articles and are very interesting :-). --Saltamarges 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Michael Protospatharios

Because there is simply no way that "χριτής", "οιχειαχών", "χατεπάνω" or "χαι" ever came up in Byzantine Greek. The correct words, since classical times and up to today, are written with a "κ", and given the similarity between "χ" and "κ", especially when written in hand, it is far more likely that someone made a mistake in transcription. If it were attributable to a phonetic change in the language, it would have been noted elsewhere, and possibly even retained until today. Nowhere have I seen even the suggestion of a similar process though, not even in a dialect... The term "οικειακών" comes from "οίκος", "household", from which the terms economics etc are derived. The word "και" is simply "and", "κατεπάνω" is rendered "Katepano" even in English, and "κριτής" is a term used unaltered since Classical antiquity for "judge". Even if the original medieval text should indeed erroneously use a "χ", it is by no means correct Greek, whether Classical, medieval or modern (the changes in orthography and phonetics between the late Koine and modern Greek, i.e. the past 2000 years, are very small). So either way, the titles would be written with "κ". Regards, Cplakidas 16:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Della Scala

Ciao! Have you anything from your sources you'd add to my recent Scaliger members additions? I think you can find them starting from Cangrande II della Scala... Ciao dn good work. --Attilios 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		For excellent biography of minor characters of German history Attilios 13:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itta de Gascogne and Grimoald d'Aquitane

I'm sure you are right about this, but since it was challenged, it will help convince people --and build the encyclopedia--if you could add a fuller list of relatives to some of the linked pages here, with a good source. Normally, one would want a list of Theudebald's children, showing that he is not among them--but I recognize that the sources of the period did not necessarily mention all the children. You yourself reverted to the present version of the article on St. Itta, with the text " Her father was Grimoald d'Aquitane and mother Itta de Gascogne." (That information was apparently added by Cadamsesq also as part of this group of pages), but I'm very reluctant to make a deletion on the basis that you had never come across it , without some more positive source. What library do you use? I could check at Princeton in a week or two, but I'm not sure where exactly I should look--the period which I know best is Norman England. As for St. Itta, considering the similarity of name, should the article be perhaps moved to Saint Itta which is I think distinctive?DGG 22:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuccio

Hey Srnec, in my quest to find nonsensical about the crusades, I came across Nuccio, which is...really bizarre. I don't know what to make of it at all. Do you have any idea what we could possibl7y do with it? Adam Bishop 18:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help at John Bosco

There's a Catholic POV crusader who continues to revert my addition of a lurid (and famous) activity by John Bosco in the latter's article. I've even scanned the source for him, and he continues to deleted it accusing me of POV!!!! Can you help? Ciao and good work. --Attilios 18:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Catalan Counties

Are you aware of this Talk:Catalan counties?AdeMiami

Frankish Language

Srnec says: "but of all the facts about the Franks, why is their language, which we barely known about, so important?"

Johanthon says: the answer is really simple. It says something about the ethnicity of the original cliënt-people and the area where they lived. Contrary to what most people think the "Franks" never immigrated that much into "France". Only the "Patrons" and their "Regia Stirpa" moved to gouvernemental centres. You - as self declared Carolingian Specialist" - should really know that when Neustrian government in the Paris-basin ("Francia") was attacked from the North by Austrasians, they called those Franks "Franci superiores" and "Franci seniores", just because THOSE Franks where still the REAL Franks.

Furthermore: "which we barely known about" makes only sense for the Merovingians. From the late Carolingian period we have several texts, that are studied real well. Even most German/Deutsche scholars now agree that this is simply Old Dutch. Low Franconian and Old Dutch are not distincted any more, even on backward wikipedia people have proposed to merge those pages. The acadamic fight between Germans and Dutch about this is simply over since the Utrechtse Doopbelofte is recovered in full. So the problem is that YOU barely know. Now it is OK with me that you don't understand Dutch, but why are you so determined about something you don't understand? johanthon 10:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, By the way - before I forget this - Did you know that there are now scholars, both in the Netherlands and Germany that distinct Old Dutch/Franconian from West Germanic languages? They are still a minority, but it severly undermines your "german" point of view. johanthon 11:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does the language of the Franks, which is known more or less from place names and personal names only plus a few borrowed words, tell us anything about their ethnicity? We knew they were Germanic before that. Are you implying that there is a connection between Dutch and Frankish "ethnicity"? That connection, though it is probably there, is not very direct over a thousand five hundred years...

I don't know why the fact that a Frankish-derived language (Dutch) being spoken in a certain region (the Netherlands) should force us to believe that the Franks were originally from there. Of course the two facts are related, but the fact of the language being spoken there does not itself tell us that at one point in time its inhabitants were primarily Franks any more than the fact that a Latin-derived language is spoken in Belgium tells us that at one point in time its inhabitants were primarily Romans. Again, I understand the connection, but it is not made on linguistic analysis alone. This is why most books/articles on the Franks that I've read (Wallace-Hadrill, Bachrach) don't mention Dutch. Your comment about Franci seniores (what does the Franci superiores have to do with anything?) does nothing to explain to me the importance of their language. Their well-attested written language was Latin. Why not mention that? In fact, it tells us far more about the Franks than that they spoke a proto-Dutch language.

As to the remarks concerning the pertinence of my comments only for the Merovingian period, I was not aware that the article was about the development of a language and not about the Franks, a term which does not have a consistent universal ethnic/tribal meaning by the end of the 9th century (and probably by the end of the 8th).

In short, I don't see how you have actually answered the objection. I don't know what "German" point of view you think I have, but I find that ridiculous. And shouldn't a minority of scholarship moreso undermine your "Dutch" point of view? Finally, when did I declare myself a Carolingian specialist? I have no specialty. Srnec 04:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. First you seem to think that I wish to declare that the Franks are solely from the Netherlands - wich I don't. Then you state that you don't see that you don't see the point of Franci Seniores/Franci Superiores. And then you follow that the Frankish Empire became so big that ethnicity became less clear. Apperently you don't see that the area covered by Salian Franks (who do come from the Netherlands)since Julian, formed the basis for Merovingian expansion to Paris. And you want to insist that the fact that Paris based sources talk about Franci seniores/Franci superiores should be totally unrelated to the original Salians? Of course the Patrons/leaders of the Salians acquired other client-peoples. And this may have had a certain dynamic in the "regia stirpa". However Conrad called himself a Salian really late. About all the major Frankish houses that can be tracked back, do come from the original Salian homelands. Bosonids, Robertians, Carolingians, should I go on?

Luckily you have read Wallace-Hadrill and Bachrach. The first is a guy who wrote 50 years ago, the last one is only named on millitary cases in other scholars (except from their translations). And Wallace-Hadrill didn't mention the Dutch? So you did miss his controversy with Ganshof? That says something about a self declared Carolingian specialist that writes things like "I believe I am more aware of the Carolingian Franks". johanthon 11:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not yet addressed the point about their language and its relevance. In fact, I don't see the relevance of most of what you've said to the point I raised. Conrad calling himself a Salian has little to do with the Salian tribe. One could be called a Frank just because one was a freeman in the realm of the Franks by the late 9th century. And how far back do you think the Bosonid and Robertian lines can reliably be traced? No earlier than the 8th century, though very tentative hypotheses may push that back. To be clear: I don't deny that the Frankish heartland lay in the Low Countries or that the population was predominantly Frankish there whereas elsewhere it was not with possibly a few exceptions (such as Franconia and maybe some cities in Austrasia). I don't deny that the Franks spoke a proto-Dutch language which may or may not have been West Germanic until at least the eighth century wherever they lived and that this language was the common tongue of the Franks who remained in their ancestral homeland and that it evolved into Dutch there. Of course the Franks who lived throughout Gaul and parts of western Germania originally hailed from the Low Countries and of course they were mostly originally officials of the Merovingian kings. I dispute the significance of their language being an ancestor of Dutch. While not insignificant, it hardly merits mentio in the lead of these articles. That is why it is not a major factor in most general work on the Franks.

I have read more than just Wallace-Hadrill and Bachrach, but those are the first books that came to mind. How does saying "I believe I am more aware of the Carolingian Franks" — a relative statement — equal a self-declaration of Carolingian specialisation? Please. Srnec 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's good to see you give up all other arguments. But I allready explained you what the point is: it specifeis ethnicity and identity. I am not trying to say "the Dutch are Franks" or any other simplifications, for ethnicity and identity are always an ever changing thing, BUT in Eurengels "germanic" means "German", and that is NOT the case with Franks. Originally I tried to avoid the current phrase by changing "germanic" into "low Franconian", but it was you who placed it back. See here the reasoning of "assuming good faith". I think in our previous discussion I asked you three times to consider apologies. johanthon 00:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic does not primarily mean German in any English dictionary. The Franks were Germanic even though not German. I think you have misunderstood my "arguments" because I have not changed my position and you seem to think I have "abandoned" it. I have explained why the language itself does not explain ethnicity and (especially) identity and that is why I dispute its prominence, but notice that I have not and do not plan to remove it from the lead.

(If you kindly explain what I did/said that requires apologising, I will apoligise if it is legitimate. I don't believe I have not assumed good faith any more than you haven't. At the moment, I see nothing to apolgise for and though I have repudiated what I believe to silly accusations of "German" bias and "self-declared specialisation", I don't demand an apology in turn. I am only interested in arguments and truth, and therefore wrong parties (me or you or anybody else) being convinced of their error and admitting it. I think we are in far moer accord than disagreement.) Srnec 02:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of what Germanic means in an English dictionary. However English and Eurengels are not the same. Just as America and England are 2 great nations seperated by a language, this is also the case between England and Europa. And as I said before it is all about specifying 'germanic' ethnicity, not about explaining the subject of 'Frankish ethnicity'

I sincerely would appreciate if we would be in far more accord than disagreement for all this may be necessary, but not very productive. I'm looking forward to see you being helpfull and it will be rewarding. johanthon 08:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German architecture

I just ran searches on about a dozen variations of German architecture and had difficulty finding it. When you do, its a page directing you to other pages. On the way, I found the German culture page which, to my annoynce, someone, I didn't bother to find out who, had stupidly added two merge proposals at the top without bothering to do a preview and had thereby stuffed up the entire layout of the article. There's plenty to be done.--Amandajm 05:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this looks to you, but I'm getting german architecture highlighted in red, indicating there is no page. In fact there is. accessed through Architecture in Germany. I'm sure you could do something to fix it. \

Well that doesn't work either so it must be Architecture of Germany --Amandajm 05:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i can't do any more right now. I'm fed up, basically, because i've been discussing things all blinking day, and what I intended to do was major work on that page. I type very slowly and I'm looking up books as i go, so it all takes time.

i was under the impression that you were from Germany. Are you in Europe? It must be wee small hours of the morning over there.--Amandajm 05:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 18 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article County of Besalú, 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.

--Yomangani ^talk 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 18 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gundoin, Duke of Alsace and Duchy of Alsace, 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 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franks FAR

Articlename has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franks has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spania

Hello Srnec, I just wanted to congratulate you for your work in Spania, even if I still desagree with you about the use of the word Spain for anything else but the modern country of Spain... Still, great job! Don't you think, though, that the intro line should state where the province was located in a sinthetic manner (the south of Spain)? The Ogre 12:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much. I didn't notice that you had added that to the lead. I have readded it. Srnec 23:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pey Berland

Hi Srnec. You are off to such a great start on the article Pey Berland that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On July 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pey Berland, 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.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this really nice article ! I'm studen in History, in Bordeaux University, and I wasn't aware about this interesting story. I notice you that -in France- we never say that Henri VI was "King of England and France", this is "unacceptable" for French ;]. So we always say things such "XXX King of England, and auto-claimed king of France".

So, for me (a French citizen), the King of France of the time was not the King of England. That why I encouraged you to add as often of possible "Peberlan was friend with XXX king of England [...], opposed to XXX King of France" etc.

Sadly, this history is not teach in the same way in France and in England : each contry teach its version. Really interesting ^,..,^y

--Yug (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I will go to sleep smartter tonight ;] Yug (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hispania/Spain

Hello Srnec. Regarding your comment, yes, I do know the sources say Spain. I believe that in this they are structuraly wrong and reproduce a profound historical error. This is a big discussion. No, let's not dive into and edit war. But I do believe that this issue does require a long and calm debate (involving others, not just the two of us), in order to achieve some sort of consensus and define stable guideline. There is no hurry, but wouldn't you agree with me? The Ogre 18:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 31 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean Cholet, 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.

--Espresso Addict 01:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bernard de Neufmarché, 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.

And another one! Congratulations! --Espresso Addict 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norman conquest of southern Italy

First of all, it is a great article. I ´m traslating it into spanish and I found something I couldn ´t understand. The article says:

The murder of Repostel is dated by all the chronicles to the reign of Robert I and thus after 1027,

However, the article Robert I of Normandy talks about Rollo, the first Duke of Normandy, who died in 932. I think you wanted to talk about Robert II, who was duke from 1028 to 1035. Am I wrong?--FAR 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for the article and for your help.--FAR 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is quite heretic since the Council we had at IRC stated this one. Have you ever edited in es:?--FAR 18:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Normandy

Hello, This changes from article to article, in the case of the Battle of Normandy article I've at least assumed (it's been this way for about a year now iirc) that inclusion is based on the presence of at least a division in the battle. The main issue is size of the infobox, it should not become too large, otherwise one could list all countries involved. Currently I think the infobox in question is not too big, so no need to delete material as long as each country is treated fairly... While your idea to base this on the initial phase seems acceptable at first it would mean just deleting the Poles (two French SAS and one Commando unit participated in operations from June 5 onwards), it would also be a problem because the article covers much more then just the assault phase. I hope this helps.--Caranorn 19:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Savaric of Auxerre.

Hi! I noticed that you added a number of links to "Lyons" from the above page. There are lots of cities, places and people called "Lyons". To which did you mean to refer? This page is a disambiguation page, to which pages should not normally be linked. Please change your edit to link straight to the appropriate page. For more information, please refer to WP:DPL. Thanks. Dontdoit 00:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise please for Adalrich, Duke of Alsace, Hector of Provence and any others which may have this problem. Dontdoit

DYK - Masona

On 7 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Masona, 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.

--Circeus 03:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were issues, one one hand with you confusing "id." (name/title only) and "ibid." (name and location), and not taking advantage of the possibility of reusing a note, and on the other hand, with the fact that the use of "reference abbreviations" (for lack of a better term) is discouraged because it is mildly jargonic and because shuffling the text around (Much more likely in Wikipedia than academic texts) can easily disrupt them. This is explained at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations. Circeus 03:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I took the liberty of replacing the leovigild ref with a more accessible edition. The original was apparently not actually in English (if I understood what I food on the net correctly), and the book was difficult to locate to fill in extra details (e.g. the ISBN). Is that okay?

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Wandalstouring 10:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppa

On 7 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oppa, 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.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 17 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Theudimer, 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 01:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Kings

I changed them to most accurate Armenian version of the names according to contemporary documents and coins. See bedoukian, these spellings are used. As for numbering system, after elevation from barony to kingdom it was reset, and that is how modern scholars interpret it.Hetoum I 00:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your seeking a third party view, I wont be able to give you one. My views correspond with the ones of Hetoum I. We should use the native names and add the latin ones into the articles. I would also recommend, reaching some kind of consensus before moving anymore of the articles. --VartanM 06:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can also check out coinarchives.com - type in you spelling vs. mine and see what terms auction firms use. Hetoum I 03:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am sure in official Latin documents, they used probably used that terminology, but auction firms do things so they make most money, so I suppose there is some reason behind what they do. As I said, latin name can and should be in the article, perhaps even in bold, but not at the expense of the Armenian name. Hetoum I 04:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there were too many questions to follow - Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia translates it to Costandin in Eastern Armrmenia, but then again, he is not Armenian is he?Hetoum I 04:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Yep, but the name got Armenianized, and this spelling is standart. No one is gonna translate Constantine the Great to Gosdantin Mets or Gosdantin Great.Hetoum I 04:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 25 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rani (Slavic tribe), 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 16:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guilhem Figueira, 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.

--DarkFalls ^talk 02:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK August 28

On 28 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raimon Vidal de Bezaudun, 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.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 20:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Battle of Guadalete.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Battle of Guadalete.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Behnam 03:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kings of Cilicia

Since most of the articles about the history of Armenia use the English versions of dynasty names (ex: Orontid dynasty instead of Yervantouni), king names (ex: Tigranes instead of Tigran or Dikran), may it be so for the ones concerning the history of Armenian Cilicia. Those are what most Anglophone scholars use anyway... It's the same reason why in Wikipedia, Saladin is called Saladin, and not Salah ul-Din. -- Davo88 11:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you! PHG 17:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 3 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rechiar, 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 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windic march

Hi, please have a look to that article. Greetings de:Benutzer:SML --86.33.241.218 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for installing and adapting of the right Windic march now. Good job. Greetings from Styria de:Benutzer:SML --213.102.126.104 19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you again for your earlier comments regarding this article. I am trying to have it featured, so you may wish to vote on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Best regards. PHG 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

On 9 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ildephonsus of Toledo , 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 10:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Learn something new every day, didn't know about NOTOC! Thanks again!Ealdgyth | Talk 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

On 11 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raimon Jordan, 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 15:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 22 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Otton de Grandson, 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.

--Daniel Case 02:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hermeric

On 25 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hermeric, 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.

A very nice capsule article. Nicely summarized; I enjoyed the read -- Samir 01:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources

"Over-concentration on primary sources leads to original research and the problems that are ongoing related to Franco-Mongol alliance."

Funny! This article has the longest list of Secondary sources I've seen thus far on Wikipedia. Please remember, you haven't seen me going over the top like that. I'm the one who is usually keeping it simple and I'm the one who is usually preaching common sense. Please also remember I've pointed you before to a historypage where I deleted my own contribution for being original research. johanthon 19:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 11 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mir Geribert, 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 12:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albigensian Crusade warning

Having discussed the withdrawal of GA with LuciferMorgan, I give notice that I am sitting down with the three classic original source texts (Puylaurens, Vaux-de-Cernay and de Tudèle - the last in the Livre de Poche edition as the Martin-Chabot is long out of print) to add the missing inline citations to this page. I do not intend at this point to make any textual alterations, but if comments are made which are NOT justified, be prepared to state your sources now. Jel 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suebi

Hello Smec I notice that you reverted the spelling of Suebi and Suevi from a long e to a short e and I was wondering what your reasoning is there. I changed it from short to long because it is attested as a Latin word and the Latin has the long e. Also, we get the name from the Romans and not from the Swabians themselves. The proto-Germanic root you know has the long e as the article makes clear. However, the Indo-european root has the short e. I do not believe the Germanic name in its Germanic form is attested from the time the Romans were using Suebi. It wouldn't have ended in an i anyway. Also, don't you like "Roman ethnic?" Its the Romans using the name, not the Germanics. Perhaps you could fill me in on your reasoning. Cosmetic? What? PS I notice you left the long e in the caption. Thanks. Also thanks for not obliterating this valuable information. I think I will go on a bit detailing some of the sources. I think it's a good article.Dave 22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to argue Suebi is modern English usage I can see that as a possibility. Let's just leave it. In English we don't generally put the long marks in and I suppose the Romans did not either. By the way, now that we have agreed, the native Suebi could never have called themselves that. The term is Latin and the English comes from the Latin. The natives would have used the plural of swebaz probably with an -n plural ending, unless they were talking to the Romans. The Romans never could either hold them in subjection or assimilate them.Dave 04:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades page

--Gunslinger1812 05:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My text block on the Crusaders article is sourced, the number in the source list is [9], Nomads and Crusaders by Archibald Lewis. The only part of the text Nomads and Crusaders doesn't cover is the Byzantine-Muslim War of 1030-1035, from Dictionary of Wars, which I haven't gotten to yet. Nomads and Crusaders is probably one of the most insightful books ever written on the Crusades, and that text block sums up the book's thesis to a large extent. There's very little information on the page that even trys to look at the economic/social/naval/military/ machrohistorical picture of the Crusades.

Lords of France cfd

Please comment here. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help

Thanks for the information on the ref., though I seem to have created another problem. Every time I use the ref. it creates a new number. I guess I'll just have to fumble through the mechanics of wikipedia. As far as limiting the text to just one historian, certainly Archibald Lewis's work is the leader in this area, but the page does have other information, not by me, that is along the same lines. If you're reading Nomads and Crusaders I hope you enjoy it, and I'm confident you'll be swayed by his viewpoint. It's an incredible well-researched and in-depth book.--Gunslinger1812 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Peirol, was selected for DYK!

On October 22, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peirol, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

award

		The DYK Medal
		Awarded by this editor for a Did You Know contribution that appeared on the main page, a hook that was well written, referenced, and displayed irony, a fact related to a distinguishing characteristic of the subject of the article, or other notable property. AwardBot 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 24 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ajax (missionary), 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 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Acts of the 1063 Synod of Jaca.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Acts of the 1063 Synod of Jaca.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Castelloza.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Castelloza.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you very much for your assistance at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance over the last couple months. We are still having a bit of a stalemate at the article though, so if you have time, I was wondering if you could offer another opinion? I have created a subpage in my userspace where I have rewritten the article from top to bottom, shrinking it down from 167K to a little less than 70K, removing some of the unreliable sources and less relevant information, splitting other sections out to more appropriate articles, and most importantly, trying to smooth out the writing so as not to give undue weight to certain POVs. My rewritten version of the article is currently at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. I've announced it at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article rewrite, but because this is such an obscure subject, it's really been very difficult to prove that there is consensus for the new version. If you have a few minutes, could you please look over the rewrite, and offer an opinion on it? I am very open to making changes, but I'm in a situation where I basically have one editor (PHG) who keeps saying "no," and no one else seems to want to comment and help break the stalemate. We've been trying mediation for the last month, but without success, and even our mediator appears to have gone AWOL, with no posts for over a week now. I would very much like to find a way to move forward through this dispute without having to further escalate it towards ArbCom, and it's my genuine hope that if we could just get some more editors actually commenting there to prove a consensus, it could help a great deal. Any assistance appreciated, El on ka 17:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. As regards the existence of an alliance, I believe that it's acceptable to occasionally use the word "ally" or "alliance" as a general synonym in body text, but that in general we should stick with the wording as the actual historians list it. Have you seen my page at User:Elonka/Mongol historians? I've been searching dozens of sources, and the majority of historians are quite clear, and they go to some effort to state, that there was no alliance. I think it would be wrong of us on Wikipedia to try to make our own judgment of history on whether or not there was an alliance, which would put us in the position of second-guessing reputable historians. Wikipedia needs to follow the lead of outside sources, otherwise we are engaging in original research.

My goal with the article is to make it be a neutral and accurate synopsis of modern scholarship. If anyone can show me that there are a substantial number of modern scholars who say that there was an alliance, then I'll support putting that in the article. But I'm confident that that's not possible, because I have been spending literally dozens of hours in libraries, from my local suburb library all the way up to the Library of Congress, reviewing every history book that I could get my hands on. For the results, see User:Elonka/Mongol historians. The only modern historian that I could find who tries to seriously argue that there was an alliance, was Jean Richard, who says that an alliance began in 1263. Demurger kind of wavers a bit back and forth, and has one section where he says, "Okay, the alliance started in 1300." There's one line in a book by Zoe Oldenbourg where she says that an alliance occurred in 1280. But even among those three, they're obviously not agreeing with each other. And everyone else either says "attempts" or "no alliance" or they're not even arguing about whether or not the alliance existed, instead they're arguing a completely different topic, of whether or not the alliance would have been a good idea. If you can show me other sources which agree with your point of view, as in "There was an alliance", I'm open to reviewing them, but I still feel very strongly that it's not to us to decide what is or isn't an alliance -- instead, we need to closely stick to the sources. --El on ka 03:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please feel free to edit the page at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. I'm also thinking that it might just be worth implementing the version into the "live" page, and then we'll edit it that way? --El on ka 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's one way to do it. I prefer the "list it by monarch or geographical region", and PHG seems to have "chronological start to finish", but sorting by "quantity of cooperation" is also a valid way of organization. I recommend that we update the live article at Franco-Mongol alliance with the shorter version from User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance, and then rearrange from there? Otherwise I'm worried that we'll have too many forks going at the same time. :/ --El on ka 03:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church in Naples/Sicily

Hey Srnec, you do a lot of work on the Kingdom of Sicily and related territories, so I was wondering if you had any insight on the situation of the church in that area. Out of boredom and insanity, I have been working on the List of religious leaders in 1220, and it is especially difficult to find out who was a suffragan of whom, or if that hierarchy even existed in southern Italy at the time (it apparently did not in the north). I'm also having difficulty figuring out whether some dioceses (like Gaeta) were in the Kingdom, or in the Papal States. Do you know of any sources that might help here? Thanks! Adam Bishop 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Adam Bishop 03:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK November 2

On 8 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bertolome Zorzi, 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.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 16:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconquista Infobox

Srnec,

I did a somewhat large edit on the Reconquista. The part I shifted to "Historical Context" was originally part of the beginning of the article and I too did not feel it was inappropriate. However, I created a military conflict infobox. The Hundred Years War between England and France was intermittent conflict, but it is appropriate that it has such an infobox. The Reconquista has a definite beginning and cause and a definite end and resolution. There are more or less two defined sides (Christian Iberians vs. Muslim Moors). Even if this didn't always hold true, even the Hundred Years War had various factions within France allying with the English, switching sides, etc. I think it would be appropriate if it retained a military conflict infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman419 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beneficiary counts

"Authority and land were meted out in the form of benefices. Hence the term "beneficiary dukes", subsequently adopted by historians to indicate the first dukes - namely those who, although in theory servants of the king, in fact received their high office from a waning of central authority." (Calmette, "The Golden Age of Burgundy") If we look up Benefice, we read, "Originally a benefice was a gift of land (precaria) for life as a reward for services rendered. The word comes from the Latin noun beneficium meaning "benefit"." Michael Sanders 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of the Carolingian kings meting out the fisc to nobles, who held their land as a sign of the favour of the king; and that these nobles gradually became hereditary lords of these lands, holding them not as a retainer of loyalty but by ancestral right; is pretty standard. And I see nothing wrong with the Wells quote. Michael Sanders 15:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 13 November, 2007, a fact from the article Peire d'Alvernhe, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sisnando Davides, 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.

--Rigadoun (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the pictures. Removing infoboxes because you don't agree with them is also tantamount to vandalism. I thought you'd learnt your lesson there. Michael Sanders 11:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pippin the Short

"The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known." And at WP:Naming Conventions, "Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs) 04:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'le Bref' is the native form. The Franks of Francia spoke old French, did they not? Old French is French nonetheless. 'Le Bref' is the modern form of the original name, not a 'different' name. Pippin was a member of the Franks, who became the French, so to represent his French name is entirely appropriate. Michael Sanders 04:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were Franks. Who lived across modern France and western Germany. Indeed, Pippin lived in several places across Francia in his lifetime. And the Franks did become the French (and the Franconians). And since it's unknown what Pippin was called in his lifetime (and he's highly unlikely to have been called by nicknames anyway), we use the form in modern French. Michael Sanders 04:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of where Pippin was raised is irrelevant. What matters is the culture he was raised in: the Frankish culture, whose descendants are the French and the Germans. To claim that the modern French form of his name shouldn't be used because that isn't what would have been used at the time is absurd: what matters is that the culture he was raised in evolved into the French and German cultures, so the forms of his name in those languages should be included in the lead for precision. Michael Sanders 04:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why it makes sense to refer readers to the modern French form of his name: they didn't call him that then, but now they call him nothing else... Michael Sanders 04:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He lived in the culture of those who would become French and German. That means that the article should be named in the common English form, but that the lead should reference the common alternate forms in relevant language (referring to his name in Zulu, if he has such, would be irrelevant, since he has nothing to do with the Zulu; he has plenty to do with the French, so referencing his name in French is relevant). Michael Sanders 04:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The French have no special connexion to Pepin..." which is why, no doubt, he was crowned at Soissons and is buried in the French royal vault of Saint-Denis, eh? Michael Sanders 04:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But he was proto-French, and the Franks were proto-French, as Caesar was not. The Franks became the French, and the language they spoke evolved into French. Nor does it confuse the reader; it merely indicates that he does have a name in the language of the people he is associated with. And of course one can talk about France as evolving prior to 843 - the term "Francia" is used to denote the region and the kingdom in historiography for before then. Why? Because it's the land of the Franks - who became the French, and whose 'Francia' became 'France'. Michael Sanders 05:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "the Germanic Frankish language evolved into French". I said the language the Franks spoke evolved into French. The Franks spoke romanum linguam rusticam, the debased form of Latin, except for those of the lands around the Rhine who spoke the Germanic languages. Michael Sanders 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, the Franks evolved into the French. They settled in Gaul, and lived amongst the native Gallic population; and historically there comes a range of dates at either end of which we differentiate between 'Franks' and 'French'. But the two are effectively synonymous - note that in her biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine, Marion Meade refers to the French as the Franks. To maintain that the French are not the Franks is to maintain that Alfred's anglo-saxons are not the English: yes, there are differences in history, but one doesn't debate that the two are the same people. Michael Sanders 05:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another DYK

On 27 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harvey of Léon, 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.

Keep up the great work! --Royalbroil 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samo

Thank you for your excellent work on Samo. Tankred (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much. I intend to continue to source the whole of it, but I am looking for other recent sources besides Curta. Srnec (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyya?

In the rewrite with which you pulled together the article Theudimer some months ago you listed a wholly unfamiliar-- to me-- Visigothic city of Eyya. Google isn't helping me. I think it needs a disambiguating footnote (modern site?), though perhaps not a redlink--no article being forthcoming-- but instead to be made a redirect from Eyya. --Wetman 22:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 1 December, 2007, facts from the articles Arnau Mir de Tost, and Raymond IV of Pallars Jussà , which you recently nominated, were featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry III

Why do you say that Henry III stopped being King of Germany just because he had his son crowned co-king? This doesn't necessarily mean that he himself stopped being king. It may be true that his son was the de facto king as several monarchs would appoint regents to rule in their place. For example, Charles V often appointed his brother, Ferdinand, to oversee Germany, but Charles was still the reigning king. Henry III at any time could have relieved his son of governing authority and re-assumed control. Emperor001 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Henry III never stopped being King "of Germany" because Kings never stop being Kings at all. But after Henry IV's election, young Henry was the reigning King "of Germany", while de facto Henry III was in charge. That was due to Henry IV's young age but also because Henry III was the Emperor after all and hence supreme over his son the King. But he could not simply legally depose him again by an act of will but only by a legal procedure, look at Frederick II's first son Henry (VII). A king is a king and not a regent or lieutenant. The latter only govern in someone else's name while a king governs (if he does so) in his own. Ferdinand I was only lieutenant of his Brother until 1531, after that he was king in his own right (notwithstanding his brother's supremacy). Str1977 ^(talk) 15:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wacho

In the discussion page on Wacho you requested if anybody new what bavarian Waldrada married.I have added the information to the article.Do you know where it is refernced that Audoin killed Walthari to acquire the Lombard throne?.I can't find it in the original sources.Timelinefrog (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franks

I have undone your change to the Francia article. The society of the region does not belong in the Franks article, because the Frankish kingdom included non-Franks, such as Gauls, Lombards, and Saxons. It is true that the content may be too simplistic, but you should perhaps expand that section, or creat a separate article.

The society section at Franks deals with Frankish society not society in Francia. A section on the latter could be created but it needs to be less broad and simplified than the one you added. I also removed the law section because it is just a copy from Franks. Perhaps a Frankish law page deserves creation? Srnec (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your removal of the Frankish Empire#Life in Francia section; however, I have got rid of the section on Frankish law and told readers to see the Franks article. I added a note to the section on Frankish society urging readers to expand it. It is better to have a basic and simplified account of society in Francia than to ignore it altogether.

You might be interested...

...in this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and in this. PHG (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard

Yeah, it's just that we tend to sling around accusations at each other like that, so I wanted to point out that it wasn't me for once. Michael Sanders 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montferrat

Srnec, I'm going to remind you to Be Civil. Claiming that I have a "slavish adherence to the manual of style [that] can be ruinous sometimes" is not helpful. Furthermore, it is baffling: following the rules is not ruinous, it ensures the stability of the system we exist in. It is one thing to criticise a person for disobeying the rules, another to lambaste them for following them.

To the matter: "Marquess" is the English form of the title. "Marquis" is French, "Margrave" an Anglicisation of the German "Markgraf". Consequently, neither term is appropriate in English wikipedia, or indeed as applied to an Italian Marquessate. Marchese could conceivably be used, but would be odd, particularly since most titles on wikipedia are rendered in English. You yourself favour consistency, no?

Furthermore, there is no argument in this case for an aberrant naming system contrary to the Manual and to common practice in wikipedia. The rulers of Montferrat are neither so well-known nor so complex as to require special measures in naming their articles. In this case, the obvious solution is to name them according to the common standards.

Now, I admit that wasn't done before. I also point out that many of the articles on the rulers of Montferrat had in the past seen relatively little editing, indicating a similar lack of user-traffic. In other words, there may have been little effort to make the titles conform to the MoS in the past, but that would appear to be based as much upon nobody having seen the articles as upon general satisfaction with them.

I also thank you for drawing to my attention the mentioned Marquesses. I will examine the issue immediately. For yourself, I hope that you will abide by the MoS. Michael Sanders 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case, it is helpful to adhere to the MoS. The Marquesses aren't particularly radical figures in history, nor are their titles questionable, so adhering to "William V, Marquess of Montferrat" as opposed to "William V of Montferrat" is not controversial, merely tidier. Michael Sanders 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samo again

Thank you for all your work. Unfortunately, I do not speak German, so de.wikipedia is out of my reach. But I will look for some English sources. I am just kind of swamped these days. Thanks again for expanding that article. Tankred (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On December 17, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Berenguier de Palazol, 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.

-- Royalbroil 15:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but there is a list of many of the contributors with 25 or more DYK here. You are eligible for this list if you are interested. It's a voluntary thing. Royalbroil 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 25 DYK Medal

		The 25 DYK Medal
		For your excellent contributions to DYK, I am pleased to award you this overdue 25 DYK Medal. Congratulations! Royalbroil 15:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a respected editor

Would you please go over this?: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:24.255.11.149_reported_by_User:Strothra_.28Result:_.29 Thank you. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested...

I see you've expressed some opinions on the Scots monarchs before, so would you be interested in joining the discussion at Talk:Constantine II of Scotland. Michael Sanders 15:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias

Ciao! I've just expanded Matthias Corvinus to a decent status, using material from the 1911 Britannica. Maybe, if you've time, you may give it a glance to see if it's all OK. Ciao and thanks. --Attilios (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Fine. I'll smile. But only to indulge this message. :) Srnec (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burgundian Circle

Hallo Srnec, it's been a while but there is a new conflict with Michael Sanders. Could you please have a look into it. It is about the Burgundian Circle and extends over many articles. My latest posting you can find on User talk:Michaelsanders. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] PS: have you news of the Cencio Frangipane attempting on Pope Gregory VII on Christmas 1075?

[1]