Alfonso VI of León was crowned King of León when his father dead, and his brother was crowned at the same time as King of Castile. He was not King of Castile until the dead of his brother, and he was also King of Galicia and Toledo. I think the best is call him "Alfonso VI of León" by that reasons and rename the page. -- Auslli ( talk) 10:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hy there, I'm obliged to tell you that I believe that you were simply too eager with your move of 'Battle of Chalons'. I gave my reasons at Talk:Battle of Châlons. I hope that I explained my reasons in a understandable fashion and that you agree with them. In the case that you don't agree I invite you to reply asap. In the case that you don't reply I'm planning to make the proper move in accordance of Be bold (after two-three days). Thanks. Flamarande ( talk) 13:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
You undid my attempt to make people understand that "March of Carinthia" actually concerns two quite different political entities. The first was a march of the Carlovingian Empire covering Carinthia, the later - which would be better named the "Carantanian or Carinthian March" - was a march of the Duchy of Carinthia covering Styria. If you read again what I had written you may, if you try, understand it after all. Otherwise leave me a note and I'll try better. Or do you mind if I undid your undoing? Marschner ( talk) 22:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The
July 2008 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)
02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Please take note that a deletion review has been requested for the category Category:Mononymous persons which was recently decided to be deleted. You receive this notification because you took part in the preceding discussion. __ meco ( talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well done! You have finally done what many before you, including I, have failed to do; bring justice to the article. Tourskin ( talk) 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the insert in Franco-Mongol alliance! Cheers PHG ( talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The
August 2008 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)
00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Wafulz ( talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! -- RyRy ( talk) 00:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that your page move was reverted. I've asked for the redirect page to be deleted. I agree that the article should be moved for consistency with other articles. -- HighKing ( talk) 00:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The September 2008
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please
vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Cerdagne is the french name for Cerdanya so I think that it's better the originally name in catalan, whereas doesn't exist an english name for Cerdanya.
Sorry for my english. --
Vilarrubla (
talk)
10:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
do you have a source for that article you created just wounding if you do please post it thanks Oo7565 ( talk) 18:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I nominated this for clean-up and should have specified why in the edit summary. I was unsure if this should count as a hndis, or given name and surname, or all three. Would you mind having a look at it again and seeing if anything needs changing? Thanks, Hndis ( talk) 06:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
An article you created has been nominated for deletion. Please see WP:PROD for how to contest this. Thanks, Hndis ( talk) 17:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 11:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Bureba, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.
If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Overmind 900 ( talk) 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Cirt ( talk) 10:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 16:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
– RyanCross ( talk) 23:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The
September 2008 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)
23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Cirt ( talk) 09:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Thank you for you comment and imput. I'm very sorry, I do not understand your suggestion. You want to split the wikitable to enter subheaders? In this case I strongly oppose. The positive effects of a sortabele wikitable splitted is zero, imho. As for the intro. As you see, it's just the copied content of the intros of the subsections and I'm not satisfied with this 'rewritten' part at all. I think of a more prose-style lead, but my English is ... bad. Greetings. Sebastian scha. ( talk) 03:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
May you have a look at the Dudes of Bavaria now? I've done my best to structure the List of rulers of Bavaria and tried myself at some short information. Maybe you are able to do a ce? Thank you. Sebastian scha. ( talk) 00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I just skimmed over the wittering about the meaning of "to decimate" and completely missed the original remark that set you off. I've certainly bitten people on less provocation. Thanks for making the change and avoiding the issue. Choess ( talk) 03:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
muy bien! Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Srnec, I don't see any English version of Regino either, just a lot of Latin editions and some obscure German studies.
For the Latin, the first bit says:
"Dagobert, son of Clothar, fighting with the Saxons, was wounded gravely by then, and he called for help from his father, who quickly came with an army, and when their Duke Berthoald had been killed, he conquered the Saxons by force, so that he killed all the inhabitants of the land of the virile sex..."
From "qui gladii" to "excessissent" I'm not sure, but I think it is something like "who had died along the length of a sword which he was then carrying", i.e. he ran them all through with swords.
The song is:
"There is a song about King Clothar of the Franks, who went to fight against the Saxons, what a burden would have come forth for the messengers of the Saxons, if Faro had not been struggling against the Burgundians..."
"...When the messengers of the Saxons came in the land of the Franks, where Faro was prince, with the instigation of God they passed through the city of Meaux, so that they would not be killed by the king of the Franks."
The "quam grave" part is odd too, I guess it means "how tough it would have been", i.e. if Faro wasn't busy the Saxons would be in even worse trouble.
I don't really know the background of this period very well, and it doesn't help that 10th century Latin is usually pretty terrible. I hope this helps though! Adam Bishop ( talk) 03:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I was very interested in your comments on the discussion page for Natanleod. I have now read up on the matter, particularly from Stephen Oppenheimer's writings, and I am thinking of rewriting the Natanleod article to take account of it. However, it seems to me that it is central to your argument that 'The only reason ... that it has been stated that Natanleod was "not a real king" is that his name is clearly Germanic'. Do you have any reference for this being given as the reason? I should like to be able to give such a reference if possible. JamesBWatson ( talk) 23:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Since this section exists only because I made a mistake, is there any reason for not deleting it? JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It's from de:, and though they don't have footnoted it, it's obviously "Reinhard Lebe: War Karl der Kahle wirklich kahl? Historische Beinamen – und was dahintersteckt. dtv 2003, ISBN 3-42330-876-1." (roughly "Was Charles the Bald really bald? Historical epithets and the story behind them"). Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 08:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Having read over [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.-- Domer48 'fenian' 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe there should be an infobox in every article about a ruler, especially in an article about an important ruler, as Tsar Dusan was (at least in Serbian history). And I changed the image placement, so you can't claim that it's worse when there is an infobox. Ostalocutanje ( talk)
Regarding this 'grandmother' Froila, a countess: Froila is just a variant of Fruela, not an abbreviation of Fronilda. My guess is that it was an authorial/editorial slip. As to making note of her being a countess, I don't know that we should be going there. With the exception of a few foreign women who held French titles in their own right (e.g. the countess of Urgel), there was no such title in Castile - a countess was simply a woman who was or had been married to a count. If a point is to be made, it should be that RDdelosC was grandson of a count, Rodrigo Perez el Velloso. Otherwise, we are doing the equivalent of pointing out that Henry II of England was king, just as his grandmother Edith/Matilda had been Queen (while ignoring Henry I). Agricolae ( talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB ( talk) 23:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything much about the Crusades, but maybe you can save the First Crusade from being de-featured? Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The 50 DYK Medal | |
For contributing over 50 articles to the DYK project, I hereby award you the 50 DYK Medal. Wear it with pride! Royal broil 05:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
Heh, that Gallica link you gave me is actually a facing-page Latin/Old French text. The Latin version of the letter was on the previous page. It's not exactly the same as the manuscript image we have, but I still did more work than necessary, as usual! Adam Bishop ( talk) 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ekkehard III, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05370a.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 06:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The
October 2008 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)
01:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I nominated your Leo article, which I thought was quite good, for DYK. The proposed hook is: * ... that Byzantine philosopher Leo the Mathematician developed a system of beacons to give advanced warning of Arab raids and invented a levitating imperial throne? The hook has spawned some controversy/discussion over whether the levitating throne was fabled, mythical, etc. If you want to comment, it's at the DYK suggestions page. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 06:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
How can you say Manuel de Sousa da Silva and LuÃz Paulo Manuel de Menezes de Mello Vaz de São-Payo aren't reliable sources? Do you even know any Portuguese Genealogist or are you just saying they're not reliable? They're respected, as well as their work, and generally accepted as accurate. You don't even know them and you come here to destroy people's work!... What are you, a Historian at least, or an arrogant one who excludes other countries' views? He is based on Historical records and other investigators (which I could quote if I had the time and patience and if I knew which one corresponds to what exactly), you can't even dream of getting access to, you're not even Portuguese or Spanish!... Just because he is a Genealogist that doesn't make him less credible, since he solely bases himself (he's actually graduated in Sciences) on what is credible and can be seen on sources, and even I personally won't allow you to attack Genealogy with your prejudices against it as a Science! No one in their perfect mind will attack a reputed scientist who, among other works, discredited the claims of the Portuguese Columbus or perfectly corrected some of the interpretations of Freitas do Amaral's biography of Afonso I of Portugal. How can you say Oppas wasn't a Bishop of Seville if every Historian says he was, specially one of our foremost Historians, José Hermano Saraiva, author of some of our best History books? If you say something like that you're nothing but a vandal without any credentials who comes here and trashes everything! Who are you to delete other positions? If you keep attacking the idoniety of our best scholars they might end up proceeding against that. With all your arrogance you don't even mention the sources you claim to be more accurate!... Please don't vandalize my work and our History with your blatant ignorance of our investigators!... And making me loose my time, three times!... PS - Don in Oppas wasn't an anachronism, it was the common treatment given to Bishops since almost ever in the Iberian Peninsula. In fact, in all the History books I've actually read he is allways called Dom Opas!... G.-M. Cupertino ( talk) 10:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Srnec! I've started moving articles whose titles do not match the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). If a person was a grand duke, archduke, duke, marquess, count, or viscount, then the correct format is Name, Title of Place. If I moved Raymond VI of Toulouse to Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, you shouldn't revert my move just because titles of articles about other Counts of Toulouse are in wrong format. You should either move those articles yourself or ask me to do it. Thank you. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Srnec, hi, I saw that you went through and removed the dab notes from several of the Guy of Ibelin pages. Will you please reconsider? As I've been working through the Ibelin pages, I've been finding that they are extremely tangled. Children from one "Guy" were posted on the page of a different "Guy", and history books frequently refer to "Guy of Ibelin" without making it absolutely clear which one that they are referring to. Though by strict interpretation of MOSDAB rules, the dab notes aren't necessary, I do think that they are helpful in this particular case. -- El on ka 19:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I think "But virtue van never be fully attained" (on your user page) is a typo. That is, I am too stupid to see a reason for it, and "c" and "v" are close on keyboards. If it is a typo, please feel free to remove this remark (if it isn't a typo, definitely feel free to remove this remark). Erik Warmelink ( talk) 22:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Best regards PHG ( talk) 16:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Srnec. I believe the air just came out of my party balloons. GoodDay ( talk) 18:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) The Republic of Ireland has been reverted to Ireland (state). However, the contrib history has been broken. What happen? GoodDay ( talk) 19:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Srnec,
I'm sorry I undid your undoing of my "objections" to your move, I wasn't familiar with the guides on that particular WP special page. No hard feelings, I hope? -- Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 08:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Moduin at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. 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! —
PolitizerÂ
talk/
contribs
05:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments so far on Saxon Brother War. I'm inclined to agree with you so far, however I've only been able to find that one source with Saxon Fratricidal War, do you perhaps know where we can look for more to get a better idea of which name to use? Thanks, and good luck on future edits. -- Banime ( talk) 11:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin ( talk) 13:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The
November 2008 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)
17:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You aren't are you? YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 04:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Try to focus on adding more sources and refs to Fontenay to improve that article and less irrelevant dabs to other articles or dabs to non existent articles. No one is likely to confuse the very well-known victory by Saxe with the obscure Fontenay of 841. Tttom1 ( talk) 04:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Srnec, last month you added a section about the Reconquista to the First Crusade article, and now there is a comment on the talk page that that info would be better off in the crusades article instead, with a shorter summary in the First Crusade one. I think it's a good point - ideally all the background stuff should be better-covered in the general crusades article (in the mythical future when I would have time to work on it). What do you think? Adam Bishop ( talk) 14:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 23:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Orlady 05:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Srnec, thanks for your message. I'm about to go out to finish up some work I have to have done by this afternoon; is it ok if I get back to this in a couple hours? Sorry about the delay, — Politizer talk/ contribs 16:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Srnec. Thanks for your advice! I decided to follow it ( Evidence page). You can also easily contribute your opinions here. Cheers. PHG ( talk) 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see you removed your comment again. I just wanted to add that my criticism only scratched the surface of the problems. It's not about a specific topic or a source, but about how and in which context they are presented. Since you seem to participate in the still ongoing cleanup efforts, you are certainly aware that many things that look nice and interesting on the surface may in fact be very misleading. I could expand on several pages how that is also the case here in very fundamental ways. Fortunately, now I won't have to bore you with that... ;) -- Latebird ( talk) 21:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I've now gone to the great length of comparing the source on google books and the proposed text almost sentence by sentence. The result is depressing.
The source primarily talks about trade with Persia, and a little bit with India and China. Textiles from those areas have indeed influenced paintings on entirely unrelated topics (= cultural influence). Actual Mongol garments in paintings are the exception, and always worn by Mongols to illustrate their native dress, but not influencing other topics. In other words, the entire topic of "Mongol textiles in Renaissance art" is almost completely a fabrication, synthesizing "Mongol" where various other origins are really indicated in the source. The proposed article text incorrectly assumes that any product imported from Mongol-ruled territories must have been a Mongol product, which as best can be qualified as wishful thinking. -- Latebird ( talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Latebird. I am afraid you are somewhat mischaracterizing Mack's writing. As I said, I am open to modifications of the proposed paragraph, if you think there may be inexactitudes, but in light of what Mack writes, I am afraid you are unduly denying the role of the Mongols in the development and spread of Tatar cloths. Precisions hereafter. Cheers PHG ( talk) 06:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"Tatars cloths were themselves products of transcultural exchange. As the nomadic Mongol warriors became imperial rulers, they adopted many aspects of the sophisticated textile cultures in conquered Islamic lands and developed a preference for silk lavishly ornamented with gold threads. Customarily, the Mongols spared skilled weavers -both Muslim and Chinese- from the sword, distributed them as booty, and transported them to new workshops scattered accross the empire. Captive artisans served royal courts, the military and government officials, who were often recruited from the conquered. For example, it is known that Herati and Chinese craftsmen worked together, and some Herati were sent back to their homes in eastern Persia (now Afghanistan). The cultural mix among the imperial elite and the craftmen working for them resulted in a rich and distinctive blend of Islamic and Chinese techniques and patterns."
— Mack, Bazaar to Piazza: Islamic Trade and Italian Art, 1300-1600, p.35
"A well-documented example of a delayed but creative Italian response to the new Tatar cloths is that of the tiny-pattern design, in which small leaves or plants and animals rythmically organized in dense, allower composition"
— Mack, p.35
"Since Simone excecuted the painting in Naples, the Tatar cloths, as well as Oriental carpets -also the earliest in Italian painting- and a particular crozier in Figure 65 probably represent prized artifacts at king Robert's court. Later Simone brillantly captured the vibrant shimmering effect of the tiny pattern on a white ground in the archangel Gabriel's robe in the Annunciation painted for the cathedral of Sienna in 1333 (Fig. 23)"
— Mack, p.35
"The fabrics that revolutionized Italian textile design beginning about the 1330s were the Tatar cloths arriving from Central Asia and Syria during the Pax Mongolica. Though they were foremost among imports in the Papal collections, probably thanks to diplomatic gifts from the Il-Khanids of Persia, the new imports attracted no attention from Italian painters for two more decades and from local designers for three."
— Mack, p.35
PHG ( talk) 06:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"This intimate association of the Mongols with a particular textile provides a point of departure for an exploration of both the setting and dynamics of trans-Eurasian cultural exchange in the Middle-Ages."
— Commodity and Exchange in the Mongol Empire by Thomas T. Allsen, p.4
BorgQueen ( talk) 16:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I came across this comment you made (on the talk page dealing with the border between, um, two places on the island of Britain: "That would be a problem of literacy which we should not try to solve." Even outside that specific context, it seems an attitude that ought to catch on. --- OtherDave ( talk) 11:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
File:Agilulf's Italy.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Agilulf's Italy.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Agilulf's Italy.gif]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 09:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Reposting this message to you as I know it will be of particular interest. Please contribute to Wikipedia:Page movement and Wikipedia talk:Page movement. I have started this proposal as an attempt to formalize and/or get down in writing some of WP:RM custom and etiquette, as well as give an opportunity to institute some things, such as rubber staming the status of WP:RM as the device for resolution of conflict regarding page movement as well as instituting a WP:RM appeal process. It would also be good if we could consider centralizing discussions and/or formalizing the means of doing so, at least regarding mass moves proposals. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The
December 2008 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)
04:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you have changed (mainly removed) capitalisations of words in e.g. many wine-related articles. In many cases, I agree with you, but not in every instance. Proper names should be capitalised, which includes both grape varieties (Chardonnday, Steen...) and protected designations of origin (Champagne, Brandy de Jerez). For multi-part grape names, some write "botanical descriptors" with lowercase (Pinot noir) and only capitalise non-botanical terms (Cabernet Sauvignon), but some capitalise every word (Pinot Noir) - we have never agreed to a standard within WP:WINE. Regards, Tomas e ( talk) 09:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Srnec. Thank you for inserting coin images into their relevant articles. Thank you also for your comment here. Best regards! PHG ( talk) 07:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Srnec! Help! If you have time, could you kindly consider correcting a mistake in Template:Monarchs of France: the first two kings mentionned in the Carolingian box ( Hugh (987–996) • Robert II (996–1031)) are actually Capetians. As far as I know they should be replaced by the early Carolingians Pépin ( 751- 768)  · Carloman I ( 768- 771)  · Charles I ( 768- 814)  · Louis I ( 814- 840)  · Thank you! PHG ( talk) 21:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Srnec! I have added a group of coins of the Artuqids here. Would you consider inserting them in the article if you have time? Best regards PHG ( talk) 20:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Srnec. I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG ( talk) 14:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, rex Francorum means "King of the Franks." The style eventually became roi de France under Louis IX, and as French was translated back into Latin sometime later, became rex Franciæ, King of France. Just because Suger chooses to ignore the Latin and instead call them "King of France" doesn't make it right. There is an inexorable link between medieval France and the Church, yes? Many kings based their right to rule on the consent (and coronation) of the Pope. Popes always used "rex Francorum" in coronation rites, even long past Louis IX. However, I think the fact that they called themselves roi de France, something they previously hadn't done, supersedes that. In any case, calling any French king before Louis IX is anachronistic. It would be the same as calling Henry VII "King of the United Kingdom." And my apologies - I didn't mean any offense by reverting without explanation - I thought this would suffice instead of typing the same thing repetitively. Cheers. Dpodoll68 ( talk) 15:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the TfD. If it's really that big a problem for you guys, I'll let you make the decision about what gets tagged. -- Eastlaw talk â„ contribs 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.
PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is both revised and extended; the full list of new conditions are available by clicking this link. Furthermore, the original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history has been rescinded. PHG is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.
Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that PHG has complied with the Committee's restrictions over the past ten months, and that PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (
talk)
22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Paul B ( talk) 02:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The
January 2009 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)
05:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Greeings, I have noted that you have written a couple of articles about Bavaria, etc, and supplied the translated copy of Annales of Fulda. Do you by chance have access to the password for that site ? Hxseek ( talk) 11:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
At least about conception vs concept in History of evolutionary thought. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 00:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 05:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationalist movement. It's fallout from a 2006 discussion that you participated in. Uncle G ( talk) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Alfonso VI of León was crowned King of León when his father dead, and his brother was crowned at the same time as King of Castile. He was not King of Castile until the dead of his brother, and he was also King of Galicia and Toledo. I think the best is call him "Alfonso VI of León" by that reasons and rename the page. -- Auslli ( talk) 10:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hy there, I'm obliged to tell you that I believe that you were simply too eager with your move of 'Battle of Chalons'. I gave my reasons at Talk:Battle of Châlons. I hope that I explained my reasons in a understandable fashion and that you agree with them. In the case that you don't agree I invite you to reply asap. In the case that you don't reply I'm planning to make the proper move in accordance of Be bold (after two-three days). Thanks. Flamarande ( talk) 13:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
You undid my attempt to make people understand that "March of Carinthia" actually concerns two quite different political entities. The first was a march of the Carlovingian Empire covering Carinthia, the later - which would be better named the "Carantanian or Carinthian March" - was a march of the Duchy of Carinthia covering Styria. If you read again what I had written you may, if you try, understand it after all. Otherwise leave me a note and I'll try better. Or do you mind if I undid your undoing? Marschner ( talk) 22:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The
July 2008 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)
02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Please take note that a deletion review has been requested for the category Category:Mononymous persons which was recently decided to be deleted. You receive this notification because you took part in the preceding discussion. __ meco ( talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well done! You have finally done what many before you, including I, have failed to do; bring justice to the article. Tourskin ( talk) 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the insert in Franco-Mongol alliance! Cheers PHG ( talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The
August 2008 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)
00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Wafulz ( talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! -- RyRy ( talk) 00:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that your page move was reverted. I've asked for the redirect page to be deleted. I agree that the article should be moved for consistency with other articles. -- HighKing ( talk) 00:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The September 2008
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please
vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Cerdagne is the french name for Cerdanya so I think that it's better the originally name in catalan, whereas doesn't exist an english name for Cerdanya.
Sorry for my english. --
Vilarrubla (
talk)
10:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
do you have a source for that article you created just wounding if you do please post it thanks Oo7565 ( talk) 18:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I nominated this for clean-up and should have specified why in the edit summary. I was unsure if this should count as a hndis, or given name and surname, or all three. Would you mind having a look at it again and seeing if anything needs changing? Thanks, Hndis ( talk) 06:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
An article you created has been nominated for deletion. Please see WP:PROD for how to contest this. Thanks, Hndis ( talk) 17:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 11:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Bureba, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.
If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Overmind 900 ( talk) 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Cirt ( talk) 10:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 16:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
– RyanCross ( talk) 23:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The
September 2008 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)
23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Cirt ( talk) 09:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Thank you for you comment and imput. I'm very sorry, I do not understand your suggestion. You want to split the wikitable to enter subheaders? In this case I strongly oppose. The positive effects of a sortabele wikitable splitted is zero, imho. As for the intro. As you see, it's just the copied content of the intros of the subsections and I'm not satisfied with this 'rewritten' part at all. I think of a more prose-style lead, but my English is ... bad. Greetings. Sebastian scha. ( talk) 03:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
May you have a look at the Dudes of Bavaria now? I've done my best to structure the List of rulers of Bavaria and tried myself at some short information. Maybe you are able to do a ce? Thank you. Sebastian scha. ( talk) 00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I just skimmed over the wittering about the meaning of "to decimate" and completely missed the original remark that set you off. I've certainly bitten people on less provocation. Thanks for making the change and avoiding the issue. Choess ( talk) 03:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
muy bien! Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Srnec, I don't see any English version of Regino either, just a lot of Latin editions and some obscure German studies.
For the Latin, the first bit says:
"Dagobert, son of Clothar, fighting with the Saxons, was wounded gravely by then, and he called for help from his father, who quickly came with an army, and when their Duke Berthoald had been killed, he conquered the Saxons by force, so that he killed all the inhabitants of the land of the virile sex..."
From "qui gladii" to "excessissent" I'm not sure, but I think it is something like "who had died along the length of a sword which he was then carrying", i.e. he ran them all through with swords.
The song is:
"There is a song about King Clothar of the Franks, who went to fight against the Saxons, what a burden would have come forth for the messengers of the Saxons, if Faro had not been struggling against the Burgundians..."
"...When the messengers of the Saxons came in the land of the Franks, where Faro was prince, with the instigation of God they passed through the city of Meaux, so that they would not be killed by the king of the Franks."
The "quam grave" part is odd too, I guess it means "how tough it would have been", i.e. if Faro wasn't busy the Saxons would be in even worse trouble.
I don't really know the background of this period very well, and it doesn't help that 10th century Latin is usually pretty terrible. I hope this helps though! Adam Bishop ( talk) 03:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I was very interested in your comments on the discussion page for Natanleod. I have now read up on the matter, particularly from Stephen Oppenheimer's writings, and I am thinking of rewriting the Natanleod article to take account of it. However, it seems to me that it is central to your argument that 'The only reason ... that it has been stated that Natanleod was "not a real king" is that his name is clearly Germanic'. Do you have any reference for this being given as the reason? I should like to be able to give such a reference if possible. JamesBWatson ( talk) 23:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Since this section exists only because I made a mistake, is there any reason for not deleting it? JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It's from de:, and though they don't have footnoted it, it's obviously "Reinhard Lebe: War Karl der Kahle wirklich kahl? Historische Beinamen – und was dahintersteckt. dtv 2003, ISBN 3-42330-876-1." (roughly "Was Charles the Bald really bald? Historical epithets and the story behind them"). Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 08:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Having read over [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.-- Domer48 'fenian' 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe there should be an infobox in every article about a ruler, especially in an article about an important ruler, as Tsar Dusan was (at least in Serbian history). And I changed the image placement, so you can't claim that it's worse when there is an infobox. Ostalocutanje ( talk)
Regarding this 'grandmother' Froila, a countess: Froila is just a variant of Fruela, not an abbreviation of Fronilda. My guess is that it was an authorial/editorial slip. As to making note of her being a countess, I don't know that we should be going there. With the exception of a few foreign women who held French titles in their own right (e.g. the countess of Urgel), there was no such title in Castile - a countess was simply a woman who was or had been married to a count. If a point is to be made, it should be that RDdelosC was grandson of a count, Rodrigo Perez el Velloso. Otherwise, we are doing the equivalent of pointing out that Henry II of England was king, just as his grandmother Edith/Matilda had been Queen (while ignoring Henry I). Agricolae ( talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB ( talk) 23:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything much about the Crusades, but maybe you can save the First Crusade from being de-featured? Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The 50 DYK Medal | |
For contributing over 50 articles to the DYK project, I hereby award you the 50 DYK Medal. Wear it with pride! Royal broil 05:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
Heh, that Gallica link you gave me is actually a facing-page Latin/Old French text. The Latin version of the letter was on the previous page. It's not exactly the same as the manuscript image we have, but I still did more work than necessary, as usual! Adam Bishop ( talk) 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ekkehard III, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05370a.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 06:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The
October 2008 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)
01:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I nominated your Leo article, which I thought was quite good, for DYK. The proposed hook is: * ... that Byzantine philosopher Leo the Mathematician developed a system of beacons to give advanced warning of Arab raids and invented a levitating imperial throne? The hook has spawned some controversy/discussion over whether the levitating throne was fabled, mythical, etc. If you want to comment, it's at the DYK suggestions page. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 06:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
How can you say Manuel de Sousa da Silva and LuÃz Paulo Manuel de Menezes de Mello Vaz de São-Payo aren't reliable sources? Do you even know any Portuguese Genealogist or are you just saying they're not reliable? They're respected, as well as their work, and generally accepted as accurate. You don't even know them and you come here to destroy people's work!... What are you, a Historian at least, or an arrogant one who excludes other countries' views? He is based on Historical records and other investigators (which I could quote if I had the time and patience and if I knew which one corresponds to what exactly), you can't even dream of getting access to, you're not even Portuguese or Spanish!... Just because he is a Genealogist that doesn't make him less credible, since he solely bases himself (he's actually graduated in Sciences) on what is credible and can be seen on sources, and even I personally won't allow you to attack Genealogy with your prejudices against it as a Science! No one in their perfect mind will attack a reputed scientist who, among other works, discredited the claims of the Portuguese Columbus or perfectly corrected some of the interpretations of Freitas do Amaral's biography of Afonso I of Portugal. How can you say Oppas wasn't a Bishop of Seville if every Historian says he was, specially one of our foremost Historians, José Hermano Saraiva, author of some of our best History books? If you say something like that you're nothing but a vandal without any credentials who comes here and trashes everything! Who are you to delete other positions? If you keep attacking the idoniety of our best scholars they might end up proceeding against that. With all your arrogance you don't even mention the sources you claim to be more accurate!... Please don't vandalize my work and our History with your blatant ignorance of our investigators!... And making me loose my time, three times!... PS - Don in Oppas wasn't an anachronism, it was the common treatment given to Bishops since almost ever in the Iberian Peninsula. In fact, in all the History books I've actually read he is allways called Dom Opas!... G.-M. Cupertino ( talk) 10:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Srnec! I've started moving articles whose titles do not match the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). If a person was a grand duke, archduke, duke, marquess, count, or viscount, then the correct format is Name, Title of Place. If I moved Raymond VI of Toulouse to Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, you shouldn't revert my move just because titles of articles about other Counts of Toulouse are in wrong format. You should either move those articles yourself or ask me to do it. Thank you. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Srnec, hi, I saw that you went through and removed the dab notes from several of the Guy of Ibelin pages. Will you please reconsider? As I've been working through the Ibelin pages, I've been finding that they are extremely tangled. Children from one "Guy" were posted on the page of a different "Guy", and history books frequently refer to "Guy of Ibelin" without making it absolutely clear which one that they are referring to. Though by strict interpretation of MOSDAB rules, the dab notes aren't necessary, I do think that they are helpful in this particular case. -- El on ka 19:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I think "But virtue van never be fully attained" (on your user page) is a typo. That is, I am too stupid to see a reason for it, and "c" and "v" are close on keyboards. If it is a typo, please feel free to remove this remark (if it isn't a typo, definitely feel free to remove this remark). Erik Warmelink ( talk) 22:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Best regards PHG ( talk) 16:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Srnec. I believe the air just came out of my party balloons. GoodDay ( talk) 18:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) The Republic of Ireland has been reverted to Ireland (state). However, the contrib history has been broken. What happen? GoodDay ( talk) 19:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Srnec,
I'm sorry I undid your undoing of my "objections" to your move, I wasn't familiar with the guides on that particular WP special page. No hard feelings, I hope? -- Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 08:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Moduin at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. 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! —
PolitizerÂ
talk/
contribs
05:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments so far on Saxon Brother War. I'm inclined to agree with you so far, however I've only been able to find that one source with Saxon Fratricidal War, do you perhaps know where we can look for more to get a better idea of which name to use? Thanks, and good luck on future edits. -- Banime ( talk) 11:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin ( talk) 13:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The
November 2008 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)
17:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You aren't are you? YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 04:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Try to focus on adding more sources and refs to Fontenay to improve that article and less irrelevant dabs to other articles or dabs to non existent articles. No one is likely to confuse the very well-known victory by Saxe with the obscure Fontenay of 841. Tttom1 ( talk) 04:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Srnec, last month you added a section about the Reconquista to the First Crusade article, and now there is a comment on the talk page that that info would be better off in the crusades article instead, with a shorter summary in the First Crusade one. I think it's a good point - ideally all the background stuff should be better-covered in the general crusades article (in the mythical future when I would have time to work on it). What do you think? Adam Bishop ( talk) 14:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 23:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Orlady 05:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Srnec, thanks for your message. I'm about to go out to finish up some work I have to have done by this afternoon; is it ok if I get back to this in a couple hours? Sorry about the delay, — Politizer talk/ contribs 16:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Srnec. Thanks for your advice! I decided to follow it ( Evidence page). You can also easily contribute your opinions here. Cheers. PHG ( talk) 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see you removed your comment again. I just wanted to add that my criticism only scratched the surface of the problems. It's not about a specific topic or a source, but about how and in which context they are presented. Since you seem to participate in the still ongoing cleanup efforts, you are certainly aware that many things that look nice and interesting on the surface may in fact be very misleading. I could expand on several pages how that is also the case here in very fundamental ways. Fortunately, now I won't have to bore you with that... ;) -- Latebird ( talk) 21:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I've now gone to the great length of comparing the source on google books and the proposed text almost sentence by sentence. The result is depressing.
The source primarily talks about trade with Persia, and a little bit with India and China. Textiles from those areas have indeed influenced paintings on entirely unrelated topics (= cultural influence). Actual Mongol garments in paintings are the exception, and always worn by Mongols to illustrate their native dress, but not influencing other topics. In other words, the entire topic of "Mongol textiles in Renaissance art" is almost completely a fabrication, synthesizing "Mongol" where various other origins are really indicated in the source. The proposed article text incorrectly assumes that any product imported from Mongol-ruled territories must have been a Mongol product, which as best can be qualified as wishful thinking. -- Latebird ( talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Latebird. I am afraid you are somewhat mischaracterizing Mack's writing. As I said, I am open to modifications of the proposed paragraph, if you think there may be inexactitudes, but in light of what Mack writes, I am afraid you are unduly denying the role of the Mongols in the development and spread of Tatar cloths. Precisions hereafter. Cheers PHG ( talk) 06:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"Tatars cloths were themselves products of transcultural exchange. As the nomadic Mongol warriors became imperial rulers, they adopted many aspects of the sophisticated textile cultures in conquered Islamic lands and developed a preference for silk lavishly ornamented with gold threads. Customarily, the Mongols spared skilled weavers -both Muslim and Chinese- from the sword, distributed them as booty, and transported them to new workshops scattered accross the empire. Captive artisans served royal courts, the military and government officials, who were often recruited from the conquered. For example, it is known that Herati and Chinese craftsmen worked together, and some Herati were sent back to their homes in eastern Persia (now Afghanistan). The cultural mix among the imperial elite and the craftmen working for them resulted in a rich and distinctive blend of Islamic and Chinese techniques and patterns."
— Mack, Bazaar to Piazza: Islamic Trade and Italian Art, 1300-1600, p.35
"A well-documented example of a delayed but creative Italian response to the new Tatar cloths is that of the tiny-pattern design, in which small leaves or plants and animals rythmically organized in dense, allower composition"
— Mack, p.35
"Since Simone excecuted the painting in Naples, the Tatar cloths, as well as Oriental carpets -also the earliest in Italian painting- and a particular crozier in Figure 65 probably represent prized artifacts at king Robert's court. Later Simone brillantly captured the vibrant shimmering effect of the tiny pattern on a white ground in the archangel Gabriel's robe in the Annunciation painted for the cathedral of Sienna in 1333 (Fig. 23)"
— Mack, p.35
"The fabrics that revolutionized Italian textile design beginning about the 1330s were the Tatar cloths arriving from Central Asia and Syria during the Pax Mongolica. Though they were foremost among imports in the Papal collections, probably thanks to diplomatic gifts from the Il-Khanids of Persia, the new imports attracted no attention from Italian painters for two more decades and from local designers for three."
— Mack, p.35
PHG ( talk) 06:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"This intimate association of the Mongols with a particular textile provides a point of departure for an exploration of both the setting and dynamics of trans-Eurasian cultural exchange in the Middle-Ages."
— Commodity and Exchange in the Mongol Empire by Thomas T. Allsen, p.4
BorgQueen ( talk) 16:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I came across this comment you made (on the talk page dealing with the border between, um, two places on the island of Britain: "That would be a problem of literacy which we should not try to solve." Even outside that specific context, it seems an attitude that ought to catch on. --- OtherDave ( talk) 11:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
File:Agilulf's Italy.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Agilulf's Italy.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Agilulf's Italy.gif]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 09:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Reposting this message to you as I know it will be of particular interest. Please contribute to Wikipedia:Page movement and Wikipedia talk:Page movement. I have started this proposal as an attempt to formalize and/or get down in writing some of WP:RM custom and etiquette, as well as give an opportunity to institute some things, such as rubber staming the status of WP:RM as the device for resolution of conflict regarding page movement as well as instituting a WP:RM appeal process. It would also be good if we could consider centralizing discussions and/or formalizing the means of doing so, at least regarding mass moves proposals. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The
December 2008 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)
04:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you have changed (mainly removed) capitalisations of words in e.g. many wine-related articles. In many cases, I agree with you, but not in every instance. Proper names should be capitalised, which includes both grape varieties (Chardonnday, Steen...) and protected designations of origin (Champagne, Brandy de Jerez). For multi-part grape names, some write "botanical descriptors" with lowercase (Pinot noir) and only capitalise non-botanical terms (Cabernet Sauvignon), but some capitalise every word (Pinot Noir) - we have never agreed to a standard within WP:WINE. Regards, Tomas e ( talk) 09:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Srnec. Thank you for inserting coin images into their relevant articles. Thank you also for your comment here. Best regards! PHG ( talk) 07:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Srnec! Help! If you have time, could you kindly consider correcting a mistake in Template:Monarchs of France: the first two kings mentionned in the Carolingian box ( Hugh (987–996) • Robert II (996–1031)) are actually Capetians. As far as I know they should be replaced by the early Carolingians Pépin ( 751- 768)  · Carloman I ( 768- 771)  · Charles I ( 768- 814)  · Louis I ( 814- 840)  · Thank you! PHG ( talk) 21:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Srnec! I have added a group of coins of the Artuqids here. Would you consider inserting them in the article if you have time? Best regards PHG ( talk) 20:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Srnec. I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG ( talk) 14:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, rex Francorum means "King of the Franks." The style eventually became roi de France under Louis IX, and as French was translated back into Latin sometime later, became rex Franciæ, King of France. Just because Suger chooses to ignore the Latin and instead call them "King of France" doesn't make it right. There is an inexorable link between medieval France and the Church, yes? Many kings based their right to rule on the consent (and coronation) of the Pope. Popes always used "rex Francorum" in coronation rites, even long past Louis IX. However, I think the fact that they called themselves roi de France, something they previously hadn't done, supersedes that. In any case, calling any French king before Louis IX is anachronistic. It would be the same as calling Henry VII "King of the United Kingdom." And my apologies - I didn't mean any offense by reverting without explanation - I thought this would suffice instead of typing the same thing repetitively. Cheers. Dpodoll68 ( talk) 15:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the TfD. If it's really that big a problem for you guys, I'll let you make the decision about what gets tagged. -- Eastlaw talk â„ contribs 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.
PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is both revised and extended; the full list of new conditions are available by clicking this link. Furthermore, the original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history has been rescinded. PHG is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.
Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that PHG has complied with the Committee's restrictions over the past ten months, and that PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (
talk)
22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Paul B ( talk) 02:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The
January 2009 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)
05:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Greeings, I have noted that you have written a couple of articles about Bavaria, etc, and supplied the translated copy of Annales of Fulda. Do you by chance have access to the password for that site ? Hxseek ( talk) 11:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
At least about conception vs concept in History of evolutionary thought. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 00:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 05:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationalist movement. It's fallout from a 2006 discussion that you participated in. Uncle G ( talk) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)