User talk:Gabr-el/Archive 1

Welcome message!

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Boviet Newion. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Mhking 01:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Talk:Assyrian Genocide

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Khoi khoi 03:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Campaign box

Hi! And sorry for the delay in responding to your request. I haven't made any campaign box until now, and I do not fully understand how do you imagine it. Have you seen any similar box in Wikipedia? I'm willing to help, and if I understand exactly what you want and if I can do it, I'll make the box.--Yannismarou 13:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see another user was quicker than me and created the campaign box. I just corrected a typo there.--Yannismarou 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aswan Dam

You noted the condition of the article on the Aswan Dam. What you saw was vandalism. I reverted the article to the version before it got messed with. Mike 03:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to Seabird

I've looked more deeply in your arguments "exploits" vs "life in" and I think while some are somewhat valid I don't agree that "exploits" is the right wording either. Anyway, sorry for the warning template before, but your editsummary was somewhat suspicous, and the odd content change did not help either. I'd try further discussing this on the article's talk page, but I won't revert you again if you want to reinstate "exploits" instead of "life in" Best Wishes Charon X/talk 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with CharonX about your arguments, the suspiciousness of your edit summary, and the recommendation to hit the talk page. And don't take this too hard, but now I'm going to lecture you about wiki customs and manners just a little. Being bold (just jumping in and changing) is something we value around here. Being hardnosed (insisting on a change when consensus seems to be against it) is not. Raising the issue on the talk page is awesome. Raising it only in one place on the talk page, and doing all the discussion there, would have been awesomer. Voting is often done here, and it's a really bad idea. A little bit of net.history might clarify that statement—look for articles online about USENET's vote about creating alt.culture.tibet, for a start. Rather than propose a vote, lay out the debate and show that you understand the reasons on both sides. Then ask what other people think. We're looking for a consensus, a shared opinion, rather than just the numeric strength of a vote. Now, I hope I haven't been too preachy, but I hope this helps you help Wikipedia better. And seriously, have fun with that Byzantine history stuff; it's fascinating. eritain 09:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a warning, just a discussion. Some people believe in those, you know. eritain 07:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I apologize for the 'hardnosed' bit—I had you mixed up with the other bloke who edited to 'exploit' and also got reverted. eritain 08:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Games Workshop

Hey, thanks for the info - I see we share more than a few common interests. :-) --Grimhelm 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Use the "upload file" feature (on the left of the screen). Miskin 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure. Miskin 18:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Byzantium1081ADlightpurple-1-+Antioch.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Byzantium1081ADlightpurple-1-+Antioch.png. 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. 20:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"...bad" question

Tried to reply your question in Talk:Ahmedabad. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history wikiproject

Hi Tourskin. I've just noticed that you contribute to many military-related articles and thought you'd be interested in joining the project. This is the link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

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 several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, and other tasks.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

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! Carom 04:20, 28 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 20:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Byzantine-Sassanid Wars

Thanks for your input but there seem to be some setbacks. First of all, the new article is completely unsourced. Secondly, I think it incorporates information that we had agreed to keep in the Roman-Persian wars. I thought you had agreed to have Byzantines-Sassanid wars beginning with the Anastasian war, and not the older Roman-Sassanid conflict, which should remain in Roman-Persian wars. So much information needs to be moved between those two articles depending on: pre-Anastasian (Roman-Persian) and post-Anastasian (Byzantine-Persian) conflicts. Most importantly, the edits you made need to come with a source. I don't want to mix sourced edits with unsourced ones. Thanks. Miskin 16:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my initial point has been that Byzantine-Persian wars must remain separate to Roman-Persian wars. The breaking point from Roman to Byzantine should be the Anastasian war, as indicated in the encyclopaedia of battles. If you have a source then you need to cite it in the article. Will you help share the information between Roman-Persian and Byzantine-Sassanid for pre-Anastasian and post-Anastasian accordingly? Thanks. Miskin 12:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hadn't really noticed earlier that it was the exact same text repeated in the two articles, otherwise I would have removed it myself. Repeating information would have been an axtra reason to remove it. So don't worry about the citing, I'll make some fresh edits and source whatever I can, or add fact tags accordingly. Thanks again. Miskin 21:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

550 map

Hello Tourskin, about your map showing Byzantium around 550 (I guess the point is to show the empire at its largest extent, otherwise Spain would not be included) in the article Byzantine Empire: you can take the map in the infobox as an example. The tip of North Africa directly beneath Gibraltar certainly was Byzantine since the Vandal war, and the territory in southern Spain was slightly larger than the area shown on the map. The border of Byzantine Italy largely corresponded with that of modern Italy. Finally, there should exist a continuous land connection from the Balkans (fairly close to the Adriatic coast) with Italy. Could you fix it? Thanks. Iblardi 22:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 00:09, 6 May 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 15:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

my removal of your content on DNA melting

I removed the content you placed when creating the article because it was wrong and unreferenced. Mutations do not have "weird structures" -- a point mutation might start with a single nucleotide mismatch, but those are rapidly detected and repaired to form a stable bonded double-helix structure, and subsequent rounds of DNA replication match each base with its complement. Perhaps your wording was wrong, perhaps you were thinking of an obscure related technology that I have heard of, but you didn't give a reference and I'm not going to help you with this, because you're being rude. I find it disturbing that you apparently made this scientific page on wikipedia claiming a statement of fact that was in merely based on your own speculations. Madeleine 22:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DNA melting

Material has been added to DNA melting on the use of melting temperature measurements for DNA analysis, I took an extra day or two to do it but hopefully made it more comprehensive. Madeleine 20:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:472px-DivingTiger.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:472px-DivingTiger.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 03:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I never held anything against you simply because we had a disagreement. I never had a problem with you. Thanks a lot for the information. So the provinces were the same for the Byzantines as well?Azerbaijani 19:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the provinces and territories would have been the same correct?Azerbaijani 20:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot.Azerbaijani 20:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use of Image:Mcgeer2.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Mcgeer2.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Mcgeer2.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Mcgeer2.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine-Seljuk wars

You can post my remarks anywhere it suits you:

Expand the lead per WP:LEAD so as to be a proper summary of the whole article. For this article two short paragraphs would be ok.
Maybe you should start "Origins" in an even smoother way. "The WRE collapsed ... " What was this entity. You don't have to expand, just to make clear this continuation of your story from Roman empire to WRE to Byzantine empire. Maybe this is also part of a general prose problem. See here for instance: "However, Manzikert fell in 1071 to the restless Seljuks. A large army under the Byzantine emperor Romanos IV was decisively defeated near Manzikert in 1071. Manzikert, which had briefly been restored to the Byzantine Greeks, fell to the Seljuk Turks again." Choppy prose, and repetitive. I think you need some help from a native English speaker with copy-editing.
Improve your wikilinking: I did not see links for some important articles such as Roman empire or Fourth Crusade (I hope I did not miss any of these and I am unjust here!).
I think you should devote some words about what are these Seljuk Turks? Why don't we speak just for Turks? How do they make their appearance in history and among the Turkish tribes? Not much, but I think it is necessary to give the reader some idea about them.
"Alexius had inherited a few remaining coastal towns on Asia minor. These were lost by 1091. In 1094 Alexius Comnenus asked the Papacy in Rome for mercenaries to combat the Seljuk Turks." Again a bit incoherent and seamless the prose here. And in the first of the paragraph you speak about an Alexius I, whom you remember to identify him as "Comnenus" only at the end of the paragraph and of the section.
I know that we should respect the way WP:SS works, but I would like some more words about the importance of Manzikert, and about it may have influenced the future Byzantine-Seljuk conflicts.
Maybe you could say a few more things about the few skirmishes just after the Myriokephalon battle. Additionally, I think that just like Manzikert also Myriokephalon deserves some analysis concerning its importance, and its influence for the future development of the Byzantine-Turk antagonism.
In the "Aftermath" I think you should also say how we pass from the Seljuks to the predominance of the Ottomans.
"The result was that even when the Byzantine empire was not riddled with civil disputes, it could not defeat the Seljuk Turks, who rarely allowed the Byzantines to decisively defeat them, hence the slow campaigning of John Komnenus. The Byzantines were never able to defeat the Seljuks in a decisive battle." Don't you think the prose could be much better here. In general, in the analysis of yours in "Aftermath" I had sometimed to read twice a sentence, in order to grasp the meaning. Express yourself clearly, with a better flow in your prose, coherently, not seamlessly, and after you write something, read it yourself, in order to see, if you like it, and if you regard it as nice and ok.
Your "see also" section is redundant. You already have these links in the lead.
Format your online sources, using Template:cite web, Template:cite books, and Template:cite news. Whatever fits to each case.

The article is informative, with nice photos and maps, but it needs more work in prose, analysis, and comprehensiveness. I hope that these comments will help you?--Yannismarou 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:SoldierBinoculars.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SoldierBinoculars.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 11:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manzikert

Insert non-formatted text here Thank you for the medal. I went through the off-wiki article and although I don't think it's POV, it's not more credible than the older sources (now removed). The majority of sources do give the Seljuks a much higher number, so I don't see why a minor view should take precedence. That's all I think about it. Yes the army did split up and a large contigent abandoned, this is described well in the off-wiki article. Miskin 08:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Nice to see you in the project!--Yannismarou 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the award!--Yannismarou 18:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our sidebar points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The Announcements and Open tasks section is updated quite regularly. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPGreeceOpenTasks}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is 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—or little—you like:

Interested in working on a more complete article? The peer review department of the project would welcome your help!
Interested in a particular area of Greek history, geography, culture etc. ? There is already one task force, and you could initiate the creation of more focusing on specific topics 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 any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

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 16:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

License tagging for Image:ByzantineEmpire1071AD2lightpurple.png

Thanks for uploading Image:ByzantineEmpire1071AD2lightpurple.png. 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. 16:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Siege of Vienna

Please see Siege of Vienna... Lysandros 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR concerns or not

Tourskin:

I appreciate your asking me to point out statements in Byzantine-Seljuk wars that are unsourced and may therefore be subject to criticism as OR. I particularly note the section entitled "Analysis" and the following unsourced statements:

Furthermore, every other Crusade after the First had a detrimental effect on the Empire with Crusader armies unable to resist raiding towns which were supposed to be their allies.

The Second Crusade saw increased unity amongst the Islamic World.

Added to this is the fact that the Crusades gave Byzantium's enemies even more religious zeal in their wars.

For as long as there was an Eastern Christian Kingdom, Crusades would be launched.

The Seljuk Turks and later, their successors the Ottoman Turks, saw the destruction of Byzantium as a vital step to ceasing Crusader activity.

Please understand that I am not doubting the veracity of these statements or that the analysis comes from experts in this field. I am trying to strengthen this article by pointing out that these unsourced statements in a paragraph entitled "Analysis" is likely to be flagged as possible OR. I am not all offended that you would believe that I am not an expert in the history of this era, but I would like this article to be rated as GA (or better) and that won't happen unless more of this section is sourced. Also, I would recommend changing the name of the section to "Effects of the wars" or some other title that sounds less like a "synthesis of published material" per WP:OR. Argos'Dad 20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byz. empire upgrade

Hi, sorry for the delay in responding to your post on Talk:Byzantine Empire regarding the push for improvement, citations,e tc. -- I've been a bit distracted lately. I certainly don't want to tell anyone what to do, but my impression is -- this has been pointed out by BigDaddy as well -- that the weakest section at present is the one on post-1240 / late Byzantine history. That's around 250 years of history that's covered in a fairly cursory fashion, and the last three paragraphs are entirely without references. If that's something you would be interesting in working on, I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated. Myself, I'm hoping to be able to return to the article shortly, although at present it's really not possible. Best, --Javits2000 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem at all with using the same source multiple times. In any case, that was remarkably quick! I haven't had the chance to read through all your new text yet, but from a quick glance it looks really solid, a big improvement! Best, --Javits2000 10:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austro-Ottoman War

See Austro-Ottoman War, maybe this can help for your 'Ottoman-Habsburg wars' article. Lysandros 06:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]