User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 June 2010–17 May 2011

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alfonso the Batterer

A tag has been placed on Alfonso the Batterer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Coria (1138)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Peter of Farfa

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alan of Farfa

Hello! Your submission of Alan of Farfa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NortyNort (Holla) 10:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Viceroyalties

Hi Srnec. I understand that Italian history before 1860 is generally difficult for foreigners. Don't make confusion between realms, kingdoms and sovereign nations. Since the Middle Ages, Italy was divided in hundreds of realms, duchies, counties, republics and cities. During the following centuries, strongest cities and States defeated the weaker ones, which became subjected. After the Renaissance, European nations began to conquest many of this states.
But the concept to remembered is that the Medieval subdivisions were not abolished by this political changes: certainly they were no more states, but they continued to exist as local divisions of greater states. Greater states which generally did not have an own name (Tuscany was one of the very few exceptions), but they usually used the name of their main constituent country. For exemple, the (State of the) Duchy of Milan took the name from its main constituent division, the Duchy of Milan, but it was composed also by the County of Como, the Principality of Pavia and others.
So, you must not make confusion between the Medieval Kingdom of Sardinia (Regnum Sardiniae et Corsicae), which was not a State but a constituent country of Spain (when it was called Viceroyalty of Sardinia on Spanish acts) and later of the Savoyard domains, and the State called Kingdom of Sardinia (Regnum Sardinie, Cyprus and Jerusalem), which was no more than the previous State of the Duchy of Savoy, which took its new name in 1723. The first one was a province, the latter was a State composed by many countries (the coat of arms showing the most important ones).
I hope I was able to make you understand the difference. I'll create a template to make clear the difference to wikipedian users. Hi!--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't patronise. I understand just fine. To call "the Medieval Kingdom of Sardinia (Regnum Sardiniae et Corsicae)" a "a constituent country of Spain" is pure hogwash. You seem intent on presenting Savoy as a "strong" state and Sardinia consequently as the "weak" and "subjected" one, but this is just spin. The rest of your comments inspire no confidence, but I won't interfere with your propaganda campaign. Srnec (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:History of Italy

Why did you deleted the Italian history navbox from this article? --Enok (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Alan of Farfa

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignore people like Johnny. You're doing some excellent work on abbots of Farfa. Impressive that you are able to write so much about such old subjects. Keep up this great and valuable work. Dr. Blofeld 09:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

As I said you, wikipedia is base on sources. Alternate history is not allowed here. Your goal to support the propaganda by Sardinian nationalists won't be accepted. There's not a single evidence of legal continuity between the medieval K of Sardinia and Corsica and the worldwide-known Sayovard State after 1720. Sardinia was a Spanish territory before 1713: this is an historical fact you can't cancel.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pisan–Genoese expeditions to Sardinia (1015–1016)

http://www.provinciadelsole.it/giudicale.html http://www.provinciadelsole.it/eng/giudicale.html --79.46.84.56 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You can understand him? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Probatus

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Hey Srnec. You seem to have your own little niche on Wikipedia. It's not really right that you don't have some of the abilities needed to manage such pages properly. You're way overdue an RfA anyway, so I'm willing to RfA nom you if you'll accept it. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My "own little niche". I like it. Thanks very much for the offer, but I'll need to think about it. Srnec (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Just lemme know! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Emperor of All Spain

Hey dude, I thought you were in favor of changing the title? You had written: I don't like the current title. I much prefer Emperor of Spain. Can we move it now? Srnec (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Why didn't you note on the discussion page earlier of your change of mind? I had given almost a weeks notice before I had changed it to Emperor of all Spain.... ???? ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Emperor of Spain, not Emperor of all Spain. The current title (Imperator totius Hispaniae) is acceptable but not the best, as was the previous title (Medieval Spanish empire). Srnec (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Does not totius mean of all? ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jordan of Laron

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Lady of Mann

Hey Srnec. I was wondering if you can look at List of Manx consorts for me. You seem really critical about my edits like List of Parisian consorts. So tell me what you think. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Treaty of Bonn

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of ancestry sections

Hi, Srnec. Could you please explain why you removed the ancestry sections I created for the Toda of Navarre and García Sánchez I of Pamplona articles? You did not provide any explanation whatsoever in your edit summary. The ancestry sections were both informative and fully supported by a reliable reference. It is common practice at Wikipedia to have ancestry sections and ahnentafels in royalty-related biographical articles. Therefore, unless you provide a convincing explanation for the removal of the ancestry sections, I will restore them. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel

Yeah, was thinking about that too. Basically, all members of the house of Hesse-Kassel before 1803 bore the title "Landgraf von Hessen-Kassel". To distinguish the reigning landgraves from the non-reigning ones, we apparently use the format William VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel for reigning landgraves and Landgrave William of Hesse-Kassel for non-reigning ones. This is not a very useful way to go about it, as it doesn't make sense unless you already know the convention. Probably we should move the non-reigning ones to the form Prince William of Hesse-Kassel; it's not technically a correct translation of their German titles, but this is what was generally used in English at the time, and is less confusing than the Landgrave form. That is, I will say, a separate issue from the Kassel/Cassel issue, which I hope can be resolved first before we get into any other issues. john k (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support that. I am neutral as to the spelling of Kassel/Cassel, as long as we're consistent, although I pesonally like the latter more. Srnec (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that personally, I think Hesse-Cassel is more aesthetically pleasing and don't understand why the English language would want to take up a German orthographic reform and apply it to a time when it wasn't in use. At the same time, my feeling is that most sources in English now use "Hesse-Kassel," so that is my preference for what wikipedia should do. john k (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for being rude to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern empires' loss of European territory. After reading Alinors replies I now understand your reason for deletion was valid and I was offensive to you while failing to read the article properly. My sincere apologies for behaving like an asshole. Yoenit (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. No big deal. Srnec (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

+1

Here we go... Ottoman–Mamluk War (1516–1517) Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep up the good work. Srnec (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Portuguese monarchs

Hello Srnec! I though you might be interested in this discussion going on at Talk:List of Portuguese_monarchs#Counts are not kings. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Case

Thank you for your consideration... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Franco-Mongol alliance Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 04:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Urraca López de Haro

Hello Snerc, I participate in the Spanish wikipedia. A few months back, I edited the article on Urraca López de Haro in the Spanish version due to a big mistake that is widespread in the internet (even the Monastery of Cañas website, which I've contacted, but they claim that somebody else wrote the page and they don't have any further info). The issue is that Urraca was never the abbess at Cañas. She founded and ended her days as a simple nun in the Monastery of Vileña. On 22 april 1222, she donated all her propety in Vileña and other 12 places to the community of the Monastery of Las Huelgas (Burgos) so that these properties would be part of the monastery that she had founded on that same year (Cister order) in Vileña. ON 10 May 1224, Pope Honorio III issued a document addressed to queen Urraca "already a nun in this monastery" (Vileña) ... Her sarcophagus was previously at the Monasterio de Santa María la Real de Vileña which was destroyed by fire in 1970. It is now exhibited at the Museo del Retablo in Burgos. If you go to the article in the Spanish wiki, you will see the sources I used and also, at the bottom, the link to the Museum where her tomb is exhibited with a photograph and the inscription, which prove that this is in fact her tomb. Of the sources I mention in that article, the one which provides most of this info on Urraca (not just the charters, but the prologue and article by the author, is the Cartulario del Monasterio de Santa María la Real de Vileña. Urraca's last appearance in the documentation is in 1224, and I assume she died shortly afterwards, since she does not appear again in the documentation of Vileña.

Now, on the real abbess at Cañas. I wrote the article on the Spanish wiki. The abbess was actually Urraca's niece, Urraca Díaz de Haro, daughter of Urraca's brother Diego López de Haro. This Urraca was a countess because of her marriage to Álvaro Núñez de Lara (son of Nuño Pérez de Lara and countess Teresa Fernández de Traba. She already appears as an abbess in Cañas in 1231. Pedro Díaz (de Haro), her brother, between 1236 and 1239 made a donation to Urraca cometisse et abbatise de Cannas sororis mee. This is further proof. Urraca López de Haro was a queen, never called a countess. Pedro Díaz de Haro is a legitimate offspring of Diego López de Haro and Toda Pérez de Azagra. If you go to this article on Urraca Díaz de Haro in the Spanish version, you will see the quotes and the biblio I used for that article. Urraca Díaz de Haro's last appearance in the documentation of Cañas is in 1262 as an abbess, donating her properties and vassals. In Nov. of 1264, the new abbess is Constanza. This is further proof that it could not have been queen Urraca, who was a widow in 1171, and could not have possibly have been alive in 1264. The queen, prior to her marriage to Fernando,had been married to Nuño Meléndez and had one daughter, María Núñez, who was also at the Monastery of Vileña, although not as an abbess. On another front, I agree with Salazar y Acha with regards to the filiation of Aldonza, after reviewing some charters from the Monasterio de Meira in Galicia. Many regards and if you want me to provide further sources, just let me know.--Maragm (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I had trouble at first figuring out what the point of this message was. I suppose you want the image removed from Urraca's article? Is there anything else wrong? We have no article, but could use one, on Urraca Díaz de Haro. Both articles could use the information and sources you provide. Thank you. Srnec (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I think the section on Urraca in the article on her father, Lope Díaz I de Haro should be revised. The existing article on Urraca López de Haro expanded, and yes, I could translate the article I wrote on Urraca Díaz de Haro and post it on the English version of wikipedia. Although English is almost my mother tongue, I've been living in Spain for many years and often I forget some of the vocabulary, particularly genealogical and medieval terms, but I'll give it a try. I also noticed a discrepancy on Mayor García. In the article on García Garcés de Aza, it is stated correctly that his daughter Mayor married Gonzalo de Marañón. On the article on Fernando Núñez de Lara, however, this same Mayor is said to have married this Fernando. I have Fernando’s wife as Mayor González, daughter of count Gonzalo Rodríguez (Salvadórez). I must also congratulate you on the many articles on medieval Spain. I only wish it was the case in the Spanish version. I spend most of the time correcting some genealogies based solely on sixteenth century sources, or articles by people with a certain last name who merely want to aggrandize their lineage and make their ancestors direct descendants of the Goths. Regards,--Maragm (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into that discrepancy about Mayor. Thanks. Srnec (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My source, Barton, gives García Garcés de Aza two daughters: María, married Gonzalo de Marañón, and Mayor, married Fernando Núñez de Lara. I'll continue looking into this. Srnec (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanchez de Mora has Mayor Garcés de Aza marrying Gonzalo de Marañón, then another Mayor Garcés de Aza as daughter of a García Garcés de Aza of a later generation (although he does so in speculative terms). Perhaps some creative obfuscation is in order here. Agricolae (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mayor García de Aza

We know that García García de Aza was born in 1106, as indicated in doc. 315 S. Millán when it says that on the feast of Saint Michael (29 Sept) baptizavit comes Garsia suum filium in Sancti Emiliani ecclesiam. This would mean that he could have started to have children around 1126, or earlier. Mayor García de Aza is already a widow in 1182 as shown by a diploma in that year when she accompanies her daughter Inés when she enters the Monastery of Santa María de Aza. Mayor and her husband Gonzalo founded the Mon. at Bujedo de Juarros in 1159, and both are mentioned in several charters, always Mayor and Gonzalo. Her sister María appears on 29 February 1141 in the Monastery of Arlanza when she and several family members confirm jointly with count Rodrigo González de Lara una cum consanguineis meis (…) domna Sancia Garciaz, domna Maior Garciez, domna Maria Garcíez, (…) Petro Garciez. This means that she must have been an adult in 1141. Therefore, it is highly unlikely, chronologically, that either Mayor or María would have married Fernando Núñez de Lara whose wife, Mayor González (Salvadórez) was still alive on 16 May 1231 (Oña) when, in the presence of King Fernando, together with her children Álvaro and Sancha Fernández, with the consent of their mother doña Mayor, grant the Monastery of Oña several properties in Poza, Alcocero, receiving the Abbey and several properties in Palacios de Benaver. Mayor González (Salvadórez) appears again on 15 June 1232 , with her children Álvaro, Sancha and Teresa Fernández making a donation to the Church of Santa María de Esperina of all their properties for the soul of don Fernando, the deceased husband of Mayor, and also for the soul of her son Fernando, this being her last known appearance in contemporary documentation. So, besides all the documentation, I believe the chronology here is quite important and it is unlikely that Mayor, daughter of García García de Aza, born, let’s say, around 1130 (remember her father was born in 1106), would have still been alive in 1232.--Maragm (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

ps....in the document dated 16 May 1231, besides the donation made, they also confirm the donations, sales, etc. that had been made by count Rodrigo (Gómez - Salvadórez) and his wife countes Elvira (Ramírez) and count Gonzalo (Gómez de Manzanedo) and Rodrigo Sánchez to the monastery of Oña. This Rodrigo Sánchez, by the way, was the son of Sancho Díaz (son of Diego López III de Haro and countesss María Sánchez) and Sancha Rodríguez, daughter of count Rodrigo Gómez and Elvira Rodríguez, all members of the Salvadórez clan, forebears of the Manzanedo.--Maragm (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Legendary

Hi. I've reverted the cut&paste move at Legendary (disambiguation) and Legendary.

This page has had many lives, first as a concentration upon the tolkeinian usage[1], then as a general dicdef for "legendarium" (hagiography) [2], and for the last few years as a disambiguation page. An anon cut&paste moved it to Legendary (disambiguation) in September, which I and an admin fixed.

Please either request a formal move, so that the page history is intact, or start a discussion about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at one of the talkpages (Talk:Legendary or Talk:Legend). Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'd seen the Luís I pagemove request at the top of your contrib history, so knew you had the process better retained in working-memory than I ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

bad faith

I am very sorry butting in and acting in bad faith here. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Vote

Help us come to a proper consensus and vote Talk:Jessica_(entertainer)#Move.3F. Thank you. 200.21.15.109 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sardinia

A three article solution seems reasonable to me - the overview article should probably be quite brief - an extended disambiguation article that mostly explains the distinction and connections between the two meanings. john k (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lambert II Infobox and ahnentafel

Hi Srnec. Was there a particular problem with Lambert's Infobox and ancestry sections? I am attempting to provide each Holy Roman Emperor with an infobox where one is missing, and the ancestry section is taken from Guy III of Spoleto's version, just one generation down. Regards. Oatley2112 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even look for any particular problem. I removed the infobox and ahnentafel from this article because (i) I am opposed to infobox creep, since many (possibly most) articles that have infoboxes don't need them and they can be highly misleading and outright contradictory at times, and (ii) I am opposed to ancestry sections/ahnentafel tout court, since all notable ancestors will have articles which should be linked to from their parents' and children's, so that reconstructing the genealogy in a few clicks ought to be relatively easy for those interested, thus making the ancestry section superflous (and largely identical to all the other ones for members of the same family). That is why I removed them. I don't believe a consensus has ever been achieved for infoboxes and I would like to see it discussed where they belong and where they don't. I don't want to tolerate the addition of infoboxes to articles I monitor and then find, when a particularly bad one has to be removed that "Every article has an infobox, therefore this one should stay!" The ahnentafel has been discussed at Talk:Louis V of France. For some discussion of an egregious infobox that keeps popping up, see Talk:Francia. (I would like to remove Guys III's stuff too, but I'm not going on a crusade for this.) —Srnec (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right about the ahnentafel, so I'm happy to see it go. Regarding the infobox, whilst I do understand your view on this, I personally have found them useful for providing snapshot information, and have used it to go to other articles that are linked from it, since it is at a handy location. Yes, many of the info boxes have problems with the content, but surely that is an issue about correcting the data, not about the existence of the infobox as a summary of the data (and content issues plague Wikipedia anyway, not just in infoboxes). I would suggest that such a decision (about the removal of infoboxes) would be best handled by reaching consensus among the wikipedia reviewers at least, rather than it being left to the discretion of each individual reviewer. For myself, I am always on the lookout for incorrect infobox data in the articles that I am adding references and citations to and consider it a work in progress. Have a good day. Oatley2112 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gonzalo García Gudiel

Hello! Your submission of Gonzalo García Gudiel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of William VI of Montpellier

Hello! Your submission of William VI of Montpellier at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gonzalo García Gudiel

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Numbering of the counts of Angoulême

Thanks for your input. I think the confusion lies, in the fact that there are so many ways to list him, and his kin:

• He was The second William surnamed Taillefer (William Taillefer II)
• If he is listed as William of Angoulême, he should be the 4th recorded William of Angoulême (William of Angoulême IV)
• he 3rd William of Angoulême to be a Count of Angoulême
• Being the 9th Count of Angoulême of the "Taillefer" bloodline.

The Published geneaology, of one of his decendents, MP (House of Commons) William Copeland Borlase, available on Google books, shows the Mysterious, and often missed 1st William of Angoulême (Brother to Alduin I, Son of Wulgrin I, later Willaim "Count of Perigord", although that list only numbers the surnamed Taillefer's. Even FMG, which you noted, lists this one as "GUILLAUME IV, Comte d'Angoulême" ([978]-murdered 6 Apr 1028, bur Angoulême Saint-Cybard).

Open to futher discussion on correcting this line. Collision-Shift (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• I also found this published source, that names the William, deceased by 1028, as William II Taillefer, son of Arnaud Manzer (Arnold Mancer)

• another source with correct numberings, as "Taillefer's"

• another sourceshowing William Taillefer II correctly (in french)

• another source (in French)

• lots of french Sources

Last note for today, I agree that the Williams surnamed "Taillefer", should be headlined as such with correct numbering (William Taillefer II, in this case), and the "of Angouleme" be added or amended in the Body text with the suggested numberings (as Variations). Let me know your thoughts or other ideas.

Collision-Shift (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

update: any movement on this, or should I proceed with my corrections? Collision-Shift (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rudolf of Geneva

Courcelles 18:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William VI of Montpellier

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Cabrera

You have a conflict between two Cabrera pages - that of Ponce Giraldo show son Fernando el Mayor to be by Sancha (? Nunez), while Fernando's own page shows him son by Maria Fernandez de Traba. I don't know enough to know which is right. Agricolae (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I easily located the source for Fernando el Mayor's mother being Sancha and have corrected that article. It does not seem that my other source, by the same author but earlier, makes a distinction between the two Fernandos. That the elder Fernando's mother was Sancha makes sense on two accounts: (i) he was the elder brother and was active in 1161, when Ponce cannot be placed with María before 1142, and (ii) he had the same name as his younger brother, which makes more sense if they were half-brothers. Unfortunately, the primary source is not cited in Barton, but he does mention both brothers (perhaps distinguished by mother?) in a charter in Documentos del monasterio de Villaverde de Sandoval (siglos XII–XV), ed. G. Castan Lanaspa (Salamanca, 1981), 49–50. Thanks for pointing this out. Srnec (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(iii) He married a Traba, more likely if his mother was not herself a Traba. (At this time, close-cousin marriages were becoming less common outside the royals, while such non-consanguineous multiple intermarriages were quite common among the upper nobility.) Agricolae (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

On Sancha Núñez: In 1221, Monastery of Santa María de Meira (Galicia), Juan, Fernán, and María Vélez (children of Vela Gutiérrez and Sancha Ponce de Cabrera), make a donation of their properties in Azumara and Francos that they had inherited from their grandmother (mentioning her name), Sancha Núñez. So, her patronimic is confirmed. Sancha’s background is not that obscure. She was the daughter of Nuño Meléndez, son of Melendo Núñez and María Fróilaz. The latter was the daughter of count Froila Díaz (son of count Diego Pérez and Mayor Froilaz ) and Estefanía Sánchez (daughter of infante Sancho Garcés -son of García III Sánchez of Pamplona) and Constanza (perhaps the daughter of Estefanía de Foix and a first husband). You can download the documents from Monasterio de Santa María de Meira at [3]. Some are not dated well, but certain documents confirm Aldonza Rodríguez's parentage as stipulated by Salazar y Acha, that is, that she was not a Lara but from the Sarrías. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aimerico Manrique de Lara

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves

Hi Srnec, Please don't move pages using the cut-and-paste method, even if they're disambiguation pages, like what you did at Sepoy Mutiny (disambiguation). This destroys the edit history which is needed for attribution. If it is impossible to perform a page move because some page history is in the way, use the {{db-move}} template to ask an admin to clear it out for you. I've fixed up the "Sepoy Mutiny" situation. Graham87 14:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Spanish epic poems

Hello Srnec. I just wanted to thank you for your kind management of our little disagreement on the epic poems articles. I really wish there were more wikipedians like you. I'm willing to colaborate on other epic literature articles or to improve these ones, so if you have more suggestions I look forward them. Thanks. --Infinauta (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Imperator naiara.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Imperator naiara.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't like these semi-automated messages. If source information for the image is not provided wherever I got the the image (and I'm sure it wasn't), and the image was not explicitly copyrighted (as, again, I'm sure it wasn't), then I don't see the problem with us using an old image of an old coin, which barely passes off as a three-dimensional object, if you ask me. I used the fair use tag because I though the PD-art tag might be misleading, since the coin is not 2D. I didn't realise that this "unique historic image" tag required a rationale for each use of the image. If it must be deleted, delete it. If it must be tagged, tag it. Just don't put these sorts of messages on my talk page. The "If you have ... consider ..." part is especially annoying. Srnec (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Imperator naiara.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Imperator naiara.jpg

So, what we basically have is a random picture from the internet which you're assuming is public domain? Am I understanding this correctly? J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if I downloaded the file from the website I just provided. I may have. I probably did download it from somewhere and if it originally had a black background I removed it (as it appears it did, just from examining the image). I can't really remember. I thought it came from an article on Sancho III's coinage, but I've been unable to locate that article and it is not the one I thought it was, so I think I was mistaken about that. If it did come from a scholarly article, it would not necessarily be found via Google and might need a subscription for viewing. Like I said, I don't really remember.

When I uploaded the image, I was unsure what to do with images of medieval coins. I have previously tagged them as PD-art, believing that an accurate photoreproduction does not involve creativity or originality and therefore images of public domain coins are public domain in the USA. When I uploaded this image, I decided that maybe they were protected and I saw a "unique historic image" tag. I see now that this tag does not apply at all, but it looked at first like this was a unique image of an object of historic significance, but the image itself is not historic and so the tag (it now seems to me) does not apply. I was unaware that a tag with a specific built-in rationale like that still required a fair use rationale. I obviously didn't read it closely enough.

Today, I decided that I think photographs of public domain coins are public domain also. I came across a website (http://www.coinsoftime.com/Articles/Copyright_of_Coin_Photographs.html), by no means by a lawyer, but which claims that "[t]he legal consensus among the copyright lawyers was that no copyright existed for coin images just as no copyright exists for photographs of paintings in the public domain." I believe this makes sense. This coin is definitely in the public domain: I believe a source saying so is sufficient to justify the PD tag. The photographer has not left his mark on this image in the necessary way to create a copyright, I don't believe. I know this is a grey area in copyright law. What is your opinion? Srnec (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that a photo of a public domain coin is not automatically in the public domain- see this Commons page. I do note that it says "There can, however be no copyright if the coin has merely been placed onto a scanner (unless, of course, the coin itself is copyrighted)." I don't know where they're getting that from, I'm gonna remove it. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Then do whatever you have to do: delete it, tag it, put it up for discussion. I don't mind being asked about a source for an image, or to provide a fair use rationale for an image, or to have a friendly chat about copyright law. I don't like getting "Warning!" messages that tell me how Wikipedia works. Especially when the editor posting that notice has been editing at Wikipedia for less time than I. For the record: every page whose future I care about is on my watchlist. Most images I upload are not. This one was. Srnec (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what? Where's that come from? Which "warning" are you talking about? If it's the deletion notifications, those templates are sent out pretty much by default when an image you have uploaded is nominated for deletion; if you don't want them, I believe there's a way to opt out, but everyone gets them- it's just the way image deletions are handled. Playing the "I've been around a while" card is a little dubious when this discussion is about how you had uploaded non-free images without rationales... J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Privilegium imperatoris.jpg is fine. I have no personal opinion on the coin issue- I'm not a lawyer, I'm only following what I understand to be policy. On Wikimedia projects, what Godwin says goes; if you have issue, I advise you contact him. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine duchies in Italy

Hello! Well done on creating these long-needed articles, and in making them concise and to the point. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hagar... primary?

It would be helpful if you would explain why you believe the Biblical use is primary at Talk:Hagar_(Bible)#Requested_move. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Srnec. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 03:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Boioannes' speech

Hi Srnec! Can you please clarify where this speech by Boioannes is recorded and give us the source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaugustus_Boioannes Thanks.--Kleftakos (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarified. Translations of William's work are readily available online, and one is linked from his article, so I've only provided an internal link to William of Apulia at Boioannes' article. Sorry I took so long. I forgot about this request. Srnec (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Navbox

Hi Srnec. Thanks very much for the navbox, it was very thoughtful of you. However, I think I've run away with myself as I keep finding articles that could be included in a Hiberno-Latin category such as "Hiberno-Latin culture" or writing, rather than simply authors. For example,

{

As you can see, even by authors alone there were far more than I realised (and I created quite a few of them!). So could we change the title of the navbox, thereby making it more inclusive? Fergananim (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marianus I of Arborea

The article Marianus I of Arborea has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) support for this article, fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Srnec (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Savoyard crusade

Hi! I read your piece on the Savoyard crusade, congrats on your very thorough and impressive work! Have you considered nominating it for the Did you know column on the Main Page? Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 12:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now (as of 1 Jan. anyway) that you are required to review a DYK candidate before you can post one (if you have more than five, which I do), I will not be nominating my own any more. I don't have the time or care to do proper reviews. Srnec (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the double post: in the article, you mention Ivan Shishman as Bulgarian tsar. In fact, in 1331–1371, the Bulgarian throne was held by his father Ivan Alexander, though Shishman was co-emperor from 1356 on. Do your sources refer to Shishman as the ruler? — Toдor Boжinov — 12:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If he was co-emperor he held the title of Tsar, no? I believe that is all the article really says. My sources are sorely confused about Bulgaria. One has Alexander dying in 1365 and Dobrotitsa as one of his sons! I have relied on Wikipedia to clear it up mostly, but I have yet to completely read through my other source. I will be continguing to expand the article in the next couple weeks. Srnec (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Co-emperor" is the same as "co-tsar", but these co-rulers didn't really have equal power as the one ruler (Ivan Alexander in that case). They were usually his sons, between whom he partitioned the empire. It is unlikely that Shishman was the Bulgarian decision-maker during that campaign.

If you require my assistance with the Bulgarian aspects to the article, do post, I'll be glad to help. In a few days, I'll also consult my books to see what I can add or correct.

Thanks again and a very successful 2011! — Toдor Boжinov — 13:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Kraft Circle/Rudolf Goldberger De Buda

Hi Srnec, nice to have an article on the Kraft_Circle! May I ask where you got the forename "Rudolf" from? (Sorry for the anonymous posting, I only have an account on the de.wikipedia.org) Benjamin 80.109.119.253 (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears you've caught me in a violation of WP:Synthesis! I checked my copy of Feyerabend's Against Method, but he doesn't give Goldberger de Buda a first name. He does describe him as an "advisor to an electronics company". This fits with two patent applications by a Rudolf Goldberger de Buda (one in America and one in Canada) that I could find through Google Books, since this Goldberger assigns his invention to the Canadian General Electric Company. The timeline is also right. This appears to me to be the Goldberger Feyerabend is talking about, but I can't prove it. I must have just Googled "Goldberger de Buda" and tried to find the same guy to figure out his first name. It seems I chose the patent application guy, Rudolf, which does seem right based on F.'s description. Srnec (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I am working academically on Feyerabend and the Kraft-Circle. While trying to make a list of all participant and because of Feyerabend omission and lack of further reliable sources, I made about the same conjecture as you. Because that forename is nowhere to be found, I hoped you would by chance have some other source (e.g. by indirect acquaintance) to establish the full name. Thanks for your efforts, though! Benjamin 80.109.119.253 (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Savoyard crusade

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Extra dates in the title

I was wondering why you moved the article Baltic Sea Campaigns to Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945). If I understand correctly the title should not contain dates or years, unless there is a necessity to separate the article from similar event. For example Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), Russo-Turkish War (1828–1829), Russo-Turkish War (1806–1812). —Peltimikko (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If you do a Google(Books) search you will see that "Baltic Sea campaign" and "Black Sea campaign" are very likely to refer to campaigns in those seas during other wars, such as the First World War. That is why disambiguation is necessary, because the Second World War campaigns are simply not even the primary meaning of "Baltic Sea Campaign" or "Black Sea Campaign". I provided a hatnote to the our First World War article, which has a substantial section dealing with its own campaigns in those theatres. They could easily be expanded into their own articles, and eventually should be. The point is that we cannot suggest to the reader that the term "Black Sea campaign" is a term of art like Prague Offensive that offers to one and only one event. Srnec (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Copying material without attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one page into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, you should justify the existence for the article and the need to used copied, duplicated (and, thusly, redundant) material. Probably the best place to have this conversation would be Talk:Sparkling wine. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are totally off-base here. I will respond as you suggest at Talk:Sparkling wine to both your accusations and to the charge to justify the article. Srnec (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Bombs away

Thx for the note. See my latest here, & if you want to discuss further. It's interesting, but insubstantial. And there's Aerial bombing... If I also took out a link to a sub-page, my apologies. (I missed it... :( :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK

I nominated William Isarn for DYK, but there are a few issues with it. If the refs were online, I'd fix it myself, but since they aren't, do you think you could take a look? The DYK entry is at T:tdyk. Thanks, --E♴ (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of William Isarn

Hello! Your submission of William Isarn at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for William Isarn

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Convoys in World War I

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

wp:lead

Please stop changing the first sentence of List of German monarchs by introducing ideas that significantly move away from the title of the article. If you don't know what you're doing please read Wikipedia:Lead#Opening_paragraph or open a discussion on the talk page. Otherwise this might be seen as vandalism. Than you. Mootros (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I answered this bullshit in an edit summary. Srnec (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mootros (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

I'm not sure what you are talking about. You're removing five citations. Misleading whom into what? What are you talking about? Mootros (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Other scholars writing in English use the generic term German Kingdom.

This makes it seem like there are camps of scholars, some using one term, other using another, when in fact all are applying both terms as descriptive terms of convenience. This is because (a) the actual name of the kingdom in question changed over time, (b) it didn't always have a formal or official name, (c) languages like Latin and German don't always translate neatly or consistently into English. That is why my version makes it clear that both are just ways of referring to the same thing.

The British historian James Bryce stated that the five or six tribes which elected the King did not called themselves German but East Frankish and lawful representative of the Carolingian dynasty.

This is just out of place. Why Bryce? What's so special about this 19th-century British historian other than that his work is on GoogleBooks? These tribes come out of nowhere. Who were they? And where did you get the idea that they elected kings? Not over most of the kingdom's history (or ever, really, since it was always rulers who were electors, not whole peoples). It is not clear in this sentence who "did not called themselves German but East Frankish and lawful representative of the Carolingian dynasty", nor is it even clear what this means. The English is just incorrect.

In the ninth century the kingdom was normally called 'the kingdom of the Eastern Franks', though its Frankish component was very much a minority interest.

We've already mentioned and link East Francia in the first line, so why do we need this sentence lifted out of context right out of another author? Could the average reader even understand what it's talking about: "Frankish component"?

Others note the ruler’s standard title simply as rex at the time.

This is all Reuter is saying. This is typical of more than just Germany at the time. It's also typical of many places today. We call our sovereign simple "the Queen", our coins say simply D. G. REGINA, and in our courts she is just "the Crown". It is of no relevance in the lead. Srnec (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you cite anyone? Mootros (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Because this is what the sources you cite are actually saying.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Srnec, why did you undo my recent edit? Lotje ツ (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

SPA

There's a Dutch nationalist single-purpose account up to mischief on Pope Adrian VI and Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. I don't really want to be the only user dealing with him, so can you have a look please. You met him on Kingdom of Germany, where he I suspect he may have been socking. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Äre you trying to set up other users against me? Just because I happen to have a disagreement with Srnec on an unrelated article you pick him out to "deal with me"? You know the rules on this, if you want to bring other users to our disputes it's certainly not like this. And if you believe I have been socking please come forward and explain because I can tell you with confidence that I've never socked on wikipedia. That and try to be more civil, thanks.Grey Fox (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead at Pope Adrian VI. I hope it pleases all, though I doubt it will. (Please, edit it rather than revert it.) I have looked at Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, but I don't want to get involved there because I don't believe Charles could speak any Germanic language fluently. His maternal language was French, and I believe he improved his Spanish probably to fluency by the end of his life, but I have never read other than that he had only a passing knowledge of Latin, Italian, and Flemish/German. I have never seen the word Dutch in the context, and it seems too anachronistic. If Charles did know some German, and it was the German [dialect] of his native land, then it might be best to describe it as Flemish (after the land, Flanders). This would have the added advantage of hinting at a connexion between Charles and flamenco! —Srnec (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I don't think your edit of Adrian solves the dispute because it doesn't change much. But I kind of agree with you on the Charles V language dispute. It's best to refer to his language as Flemish if that would solve the dispute. I've read how he did speak Flemish quite often, mostly as his second language and sometimes even as his first language (though I don't believe that) but fluent in both cases. Perhaps Belgian sources will have the answer since it's been debated there. Grey Fox (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You can be banned

If w the you don't follow the decision of the wikipedian community about the page of the Kingdom of Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus, you will be bannned from wikipedia. Make attention, please.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kingdom of Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)