Hi. I noted your post on Lobsterthermidor's talk page about the use of the word "armorial". Browsing today, I came across Gorges family which includes several mentions of "armourials". I guess the same correction to "arms" would be relevant here, but am not certain.
I think the book title Burke's Armorials (1884) in the Refs and Sources sections may be wrong too. I have a pdf copy of The General Armory by Burke (1884), which matches the reference cited to it (p. 413) - it's from here: https://archive.org/details/generalarmoryofe00burk — SMALL JIM 19:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Johnson.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capture of Cambridge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of Cambridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 ( talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capture of Oxford is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of Oxford until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 ( talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Siege of Cardiff is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Cardiff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 ( talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The first source says that Lord de Mauley and his wife have no children. The second source say that George is his brother.
How many clues do you need?
HandsomeFella ( talk) 16:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Natalis soli invicto! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
https://www.facebook.com/groups/149844915349213 the False Archaeology Wall of Shame. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you've been seeing and dealing with a lot of these disruptive edits on Emirate of Sicily and elsewhere, so for what it's worth I've posted a request to investigate a number of those accounts that look like sockpuppets to me. It's my first time going to that noticeboard though, so if you have any other suggestions/feedback let me know. Otherwise I assume it's a matter of waiting for the outcome. Cheers, R Prazeres ( talk) 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I modified the research on the history of slavery and recorded it in Wikipedia in the English language Thetranslaterofhistory ( talk). 21:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the article contains a great effort. As for exaggeration, there is no exaggeration in my article. Rather, I wrote the facts that existed as well in the Abbasid era. Thetranslaterofhistory ( talk). 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the article contains a great effort. As for exaggeration, there is no exaggeration in my article. Rather, I wrote the facts that existed as well in the Abbasid era. Thetranslaterofhistory ( talk). 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Thank you for fixing the Muladi links. Take this as a token of forgiveness. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
Do you want me to help out with the article or not?-- Berig ( talk) 19:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Did you know the history before you say there's no wrong??
"The Moors used ethnic European slaves: 1/12 of Iberian population were slave Europeans, less than 1% of Iberia were Moors and more than 99% were native Iberians. Periodic Arab and Moorish raiding expeditions were sent from Islamic Iberia to ravage the remaining Christian Iberian kingdoms, bringing back stolen goods and slaves. In a raid against Lisbon in 1189, for example, the Almohad caliph Yaqub al-Mansur held 3,000 women and children as captives, while his governor of Córdoba, in a subsequent attack upon Silves, held 3,000 Christian slaves in 1191. In addition, the Christian Iberians who lived within Arab and Moorish-ruled territories were subject to specific laws and taxes for state protection."
That's very very very wrong!!and there's no source!!i start wrote another one and delete all that's messy stuff Suwanax12 ( talk) 15:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
What make you delete the word "arab" from everywhere?? I saw you do the same things in most article is there's any problem?for delete what i add? Isamaxzs ( talk) 03:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The real question is why did you delete the word "Arab" from the original article ?? I deleted the word "Arab" from everywhere in the Emirate of Granada !! Without a convincing reason, I brought it back as it was and you want to delete the word Arab again !!why what's bothering you? Isamaxzs ( talk) 04:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean you deleted the word "Arab" yourself from the entire article, why? i rewrote it as it was, what makes you want to delete it? Is the article wrong, for example? Isamaxzs ( talk) 05:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
you just deleted my article that's true, but before deleting my article, the article was originally written the same as what I wrote, but you deleted it for no apparent reason and you returned it to what it was and you deleted it again !! What is the problem ?? Isamaxzs ( talk) 05:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
How do I return it? Why don't I write it again? Isamaxzs ( talk) 15:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Agricole. Kindly see the Kutama page too (can't revert now, it's against the 3-revert rules) since it totally deletes the leaders who founded and ruled the caliphate ( List of Fatimid caliphs). Thanks for protecting the Encyclopedia.
Anchovy Aquarium ( talk) 20:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Agricole, I want to remove Daniel Maiorana from the page for the surname because of the same reasons you gave. And I'd like to know how to explain this in the edit summary, does his listing go against any WP notability criteria? Thank you. 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:DF5:D6A7:90C5:F888 ( talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The only problem with the proper way is that the majority of the Fucked for Life article here on Wikipedia is about Daniel and his activities, I'm cautious about removing from an already under-written stub. I've also noticed all-except-two references are now dead links. 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:DF5:D6A7:90C5:F888 ( talk) 23:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok then, thank you for all of your help. 90.195.89.74 ( talk) 00:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Hi Agricolae, regarding the Fucked for Life and Maiorana pages, is Daniel's birthdate sourced? 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:A16E:F119:3365:C358 ( talk) 00:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Technically I guess this changed the meaning [2]. OTOH the whole thing is unsourced, and I have not looked into it for a long time. So presumably you know what you are doing. I just note it in case there is a chance you made a mistake. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.
Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.
Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 22:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, there is a new discussion that you may wish to participate in. Blockhouse321 ( talk) 13:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Se não e assim então como e que e que eu não vi outro geito, existe outro? Arquijaiv ( talk) 23:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It's always difficult to know what to do with previously recognized taxa that have had widespread use, and I did hesitate before redirecting Oxanthera to Citrus. A remaining problem is that although in 2009, Bayer et al. suggested using Citrus subg. Oxanthera for this group of species, a Google Scholar search for "subgenus Oxanthera" doesn't show any takers, so at best "false oranges" are an informal group, which makes the taxobox a problem, since it shouldn't target Citrus when this isn't the subject of the article. We could set up a taxonomy template at, say, Template:Taxonomy/False oranges with the 'rank' "informal group" and parent Citrus, I guess. Thoughts? Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Farley (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farley.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abd al-Rahman Sanchuelo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calatrava.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
French one | |
Thank you! An article Wikipedia needed. Miha ( talk) 16:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC) |
The Baldwin ref seems to be a 1996 forum post in which one "Stewart Baldwin" criticized a genealogical reconstruction of ancient Middle Eastern royalty by Christian Settipani, as involving too much conjecture. The Darius II article you brought to my attention also references this 1998 email, in which Settipani admits (acknowledging Baldwin's criticism) to "Darius II" being no more than a placeholder name for an unidentified person. So, I think it's safe to say the source is unreliable, and that "Darius II" is bogus. I'll nominate that article for deletion too. Avilich ( talk) 13:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Io, Saturnalia! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
Greetings. I believe that you are correct about my edit, this isn't WP: weasel. Also i believe, despite my mistake in Wikipedia terminology, my edit is justified, because in phrase: "and were heavely defeated" the word "heavely" INDEED against wikipedia rules as MOS:WTW. Good luck! 31.40.131.100 ( talk) 17:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BeatriceCastle ( talk) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC) to do so.
What’s the phrases you’re searching for to find the genealogy issues? You can email if you want to avoid WP:BEANS. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, the Russian name is undoubtedly more important. It is the closest language to old east slavonic, and the Kievan Rus were effectively Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Սեաւ Պարտէզ ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
So I saw your edit to Abraham Pietersen van Deusen go by, and I appreciate it--to find that in the end, all roads lead not to Rome, but to Wyandanch, New York... Once upon a time I and a few others pruned it a bit; I see it's suffering from accretion again. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 16:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to WP:URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. An article that you nominated for FA status, William the Conqueror, has been marked as "Satisfactory" by two editors, meaning that they believe the article meets the featured article criteria. Can you check the article and determine if it meets the FA criteria? If it does, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020B. If you have concerns about the article, we hope that you will fix it up or post your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please go to the URFA/2020 talk page. Thanks for your help and happy editing! Z1720 ( talk) 19:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, posted it on the TP of Sigrid the Haughty. Sorry for misspelling your nick there, btw. T 46.212.185.190 ( talk) 19:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
If you have issues with article content because of edits by another user, and the issues are not primarily about user behavior, you are to write about such issues on the article's talk page, not on the user's talk page, and you are not to repeatedly reverse the other user's work without discussion there. Such basic policies about conduct on Wikipedia apply to you, me, everyone. You have now done this twice, though you were specifically asked not to use my talk page while continuing to mum your issue on the article's talk page. Edit summaries are not sufficient, and do not replace our obligation to discuss article content on article talk pages. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
On 16 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 19th-century photographer Eadweard Muybridge created more than 100,000 images for his study Animal Locomotion (example pictured) that included an ostrich and a capybara? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Good evening sir just wanted to make sure you accept my edit after I corrected the citation and that you don’t feel I was edit warring about it. Foorgood ( talk) 02:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Hey, thanks for the revertion on Harald Bluetooth, as I probably should of placed that info on the Bluetooth page. :) — I'ma editor2022 ( 🗣️💬 | 📖📚) 12:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Agricola,
to put this very simply, I understand and do agree with your revert, but I think it would be both fun and useful to the common knowledge if we both tried to find fitting sources for what you conceded was true - that George Washington's descent has been linked and theorized to a host of legendary figures (although logically this would also include many millions of "ordinary" people too). I can be a bit lazy with digging, but perhaps you can be more of an inspiration. This field of study anyway is one that is often sadly overlooked, and this page is about THE President that comes to peoples' minds first, so, you know. That wasn't a "very simple" text but please help. ~Sıgehelmus♗ (Tøk) 04:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated William the Conqueror to be today's featured article on September 9. Please click here to join the discussion. Z1720 ( talk) 00:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you today forwhat you did for the article, introduced (in 2012): "I am nominating this for featured article because after extensive work and revamping, I feel this is the best article possible for the subject. Everyone should know about William the Conqueror - his invasion of England in 1066 is one of "those dates" that even Yanks can remember. But there is a lot more to William than his invasion of England, and this article tries to put him in context of his entire life. After numerous copyedits, an extensive peer review process and lots and lots of work (including the most excellent family tree charts by Agricolae, who has no idea I just co-nom'd him for this... surprise!) This is what it looked like when I began work this January. It's doubled in size and the sourcing has been greatly improved as I've done a complete reread of the two main biographies of William to update the sourcing. I've also incorporated a number of other works on the Conquest and the time period, but the major sources remain the scholarly biographies of William. This is a wikicup nomination for me, but it's been a labour of love for myself as well as all my wonderful helpers. I present - William the Bastard who became William the Conqueror, a rather dour but extremely important historical figure."! - On a smaller scale, we have expanded Lars Vogt from a short article focused on conducting tenures. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello and salutations. I came to apologize for my edits on przewalski’s horse, and if they seemed to be counterproductive. I was attempting to add a statement meaning to say that the information regarding the horse's status as a domestic/feral animal was disputed. I was somewhat inexperienced at editing articles back then Firekong1 ( talk) 03:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Have a wonderful holiday season filled with peace, joy, prosperity and wonder. | |
Hi Agricolae, Thank you for all your contributions during the year.
Netherzone (
talk) 22:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
|
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 13:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hey @ Agricolae.
I've been looking at the DfA page which you seem to have been quite active on since 2019. This topic is very interesting and it is one that many genealogists seem to be quite personally invested in – probably part of the reason why this article has always been called 'messy'. Even now, after extensive revisions, it still has its maintenance template. That in mind, you seem to be versed in the history of this article and I have some questions:
I hope you can clear some of these things up. I also want you to know that I come in peace – I only say this because I have seen in that article's talk page utter chaos in discourse. I want to understand what happened and how it can be improved (although it seems – with your edits (removals) in 2019 – far better than it was before). Snspigs ( talk) 15:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The article William of Évreux (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (
talk) 05:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I noted your post on Lobsterthermidor's talk page about the use of the word "armorial". Browsing today, I came across Gorges family which includes several mentions of "armourials". I guess the same correction to "arms" would be relevant here, but am not certain.
I think the book title Burke's Armorials (1884) in the Refs and Sources sections may be wrong too. I have a pdf copy of The General Armory by Burke (1884), which matches the reference cited to it (p. 413) - it's from here: https://archive.org/details/generalarmoryofe00burk — SMALL JIM 19:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Johnson.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capture of Cambridge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of Cambridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 ( talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capture of Oxford is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of Oxford until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 ( talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Siege of Cardiff is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Cardiff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 ( talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The first source says that Lord de Mauley and his wife have no children. The second source say that George is his brother.
How many clues do you need?
HandsomeFella ( talk) 16:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Natalis soli invicto! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
https://www.facebook.com/groups/149844915349213 the False Archaeology Wall of Shame. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you've been seeing and dealing with a lot of these disruptive edits on Emirate of Sicily and elsewhere, so for what it's worth I've posted a request to investigate a number of those accounts that look like sockpuppets to me. It's my first time going to that noticeboard though, so if you have any other suggestions/feedback let me know. Otherwise I assume it's a matter of waiting for the outcome. Cheers, R Prazeres ( talk) 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I modified the research on the history of slavery and recorded it in Wikipedia in the English language Thetranslaterofhistory ( talk). 21:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the article contains a great effort. As for exaggeration, there is no exaggeration in my article. Rather, I wrote the facts that existed as well in the Abbasid era. Thetranslaterofhistory ( talk). 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the article contains a great effort. As for exaggeration, there is no exaggeration in my article. Rather, I wrote the facts that existed as well in the Abbasid era. Thetranslaterofhistory ( talk). 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Thank you for fixing the Muladi links. Take this as a token of forgiveness. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
Do you want me to help out with the article or not?-- Berig ( talk) 19:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Did you know the history before you say there's no wrong??
"The Moors used ethnic European slaves: 1/12 of Iberian population were slave Europeans, less than 1% of Iberia were Moors and more than 99% were native Iberians. Periodic Arab and Moorish raiding expeditions were sent from Islamic Iberia to ravage the remaining Christian Iberian kingdoms, bringing back stolen goods and slaves. In a raid against Lisbon in 1189, for example, the Almohad caliph Yaqub al-Mansur held 3,000 women and children as captives, while his governor of Córdoba, in a subsequent attack upon Silves, held 3,000 Christian slaves in 1191. In addition, the Christian Iberians who lived within Arab and Moorish-ruled territories were subject to specific laws and taxes for state protection."
That's very very very wrong!!and there's no source!!i start wrote another one and delete all that's messy stuff Suwanax12 ( talk) 15:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
What make you delete the word "arab" from everywhere?? I saw you do the same things in most article is there's any problem?for delete what i add? Isamaxzs ( talk) 03:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The real question is why did you delete the word "Arab" from the original article ?? I deleted the word "Arab" from everywhere in the Emirate of Granada !! Without a convincing reason, I brought it back as it was and you want to delete the word Arab again !!why what's bothering you? Isamaxzs ( talk) 04:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean you deleted the word "Arab" yourself from the entire article, why? i rewrote it as it was, what makes you want to delete it? Is the article wrong, for example? Isamaxzs ( talk) 05:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
you just deleted my article that's true, but before deleting my article, the article was originally written the same as what I wrote, but you deleted it for no apparent reason and you returned it to what it was and you deleted it again !! What is the problem ?? Isamaxzs ( talk) 05:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
How do I return it? Why don't I write it again? Isamaxzs ( talk) 15:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Agricole. Kindly see the Kutama page too (can't revert now, it's against the 3-revert rules) since it totally deletes the leaders who founded and ruled the caliphate ( List of Fatimid caliphs). Thanks for protecting the Encyclopedia.
Anchovy Aquarium ( talk) 20:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Agricole, I want to remove Daniel Maiorana from the page for the surname because of the same reasons you gave. And I'd like to know how to explain this in the edit summary, does his listing go against any WP notability criteria? Thank you. 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:DF5:D6A7:90C5:F888 ( talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The only problem with the proper way is that the majority of the Fucked for Life article here on Wikipedia is about Daniel and his activities, I'm cautious about removing from an already under-written stub. I've also noticed all-except-two references are now dead links. 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:DF5:D6A7:90C5:F888 ( talk) 23:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok then, thank you for all of your help. 90.195.89.74 ( talk) 00:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Hi Agricolae, regarding the Fucked for Life and Maiorana pages, is Daniel's birthdate sourced? 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:A16E:F119:3365:C358 ( talk) 00:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Technically I guess this changed the meaning [2]. OTOH the whole thing is unsourced, and I have not looked into it for a long time. So presumably you know what you are doing. I just note it in case there is a chance you made a mistake. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.
Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.
Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 22:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, there is a new discussion that you may wish to participate in. Blockhouse321 ( talk) 13:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Se não e assim então como e que e que eu não vi outro geito, existe outro? Arquijaiv ( talk) 23:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It's always difficult to know what to do with previously recognized taxa that have had widespread use, and I did hesitate before redirecting Oxanthera to Citrus. A remaining problem is that although in 2009, Bayer et al. suggested using Citrus subg. Oxanthera for this group of species, a Google Scholar search for "subgenus Oxanthera" doesn't show any takers, so at best "false oranges" are an informal group, which makes the taxobox a problem, since it shouldn't target Citrus when this isn't the subject of the article. We could set up a taxonomy template at, say, Template:Taxonomy/False oranges with the 'rank' "informal group" and parent Citrus, I guess. Thoughts? Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Farley (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farley.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abd al-Rahman Sanchuelo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calatrava.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
French one | |
Thank you! An article Wikipedia needed. Miha ( talk) 16:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC) |
The Baldwin ref seems to be a 1996 forum post in which one "Stewart Baldwin" criticized a genealogical reconstruction of ancient Middle Eastern royalty by Christian Settipani, as involving too much conjecture. The Darius II article you brought to my attention also references this 1998 email, in which Settipani admits (acknowledging Baldwin's criticism) to "Darius II" being no more than a placeholder name for an unidentified person. So, I think it's safe to say the source is unreliable, and that "Darius II" is bogus. I'll nominate that article for deletion too. Avilich ( talk) 13:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Io, Saturnalia! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
Greetings. I believe that you are correct about my edit, this isn't WP: weasel. Also i believe, despite my mistake in Wikipedia terminology, my edit is justified, because in phrase: "and were heavely defeated" the word "heavely" INDEED against wikipedia rules as MOS:WTW. Good luck! 31.40.131.100 ( talk) 17:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BeatriceCastle ( talk) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC) to do so.
What’s the phrases you’re searching for to find the genealogy issues? You can email if you want to avoid WP:BEANS. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, the Russian name is undoubtedly more important. It is the closest language to old east slavonic, and the Kievan Rus were effectively Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Սեաւ Պարտէզ ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
So I saw your edit to Abraham Pietersen van Deusen go by, and I appreciate it--to find that in the end, all roads lead not to Rome, but to Wyandanch, New York... Once upon a time I and a few others pruned it a bit; I see it's suffering from accretion again. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 16:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to WP:URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. An article that you nominated for FA status, William the Conqueror, has been marked as "Satisfactory" by two editors, meaning that they believe the article meets the featured article criteria. Can you check the article and determine if it meets the FA criteria? If it does, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020B. If you have concerns about the article, we hope that you will fix it up or post your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please go to the URFA/2020 talk page. Thanks for your help and happy editing! Z1720 ( talk) 19:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, posted it on the TP of Sigrid the Haughty. Sorry for misspelling your nick there, btw. T 46.212.185.190 ( talk) 19:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
If you have issues with article content because of edits by another user, and the issues are not primarily about user behavior, you are to write about such issues on the article's talk page, not on the user's talk page, and you are not to repeatedly reverse the other user's work without discussion there. Such basic policies about conduct on Wikipedia apply to you, me, everyone. You have now done this twice, though you were specifically asked not to use my talk page while continuing to mum your issue on the article's talk page. Edit summaries are not sufficient, and do not replace our obligation to discuss article content on article talk pages. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
On 16 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 19th-century photographer Eadweard Muybridge created more than 100,000 images for his study Animal Locomotion (example pictured) that included an ostrich and a capybara? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Good evening sir just wanted to make sure you accept my edit after I corrected the citation and that you don’t feel I was edit warring about it. Foorgood ( talk) 02:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Hey, thanks for the revertion on Harald Bluetooth, as I probably should of placed that info on the Bluetooth page. :) — I'ma editor2022 ( 🗣️💬 | 📖📚) 12:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Agricola,
to put this very simply, I understand and do agree with your revert, but I think it would be both fun and useful to the common knowledge if we both tried to find fitting sources for what you conceded was true - that George Washington's descent has been linked and theorized to a host of legendary figures (although logically this would also include many millions of "ordinary" people too). I can be a bit lazy with digging, but perhaps you can be more of an inspiration. This field of study anyway is one that is often sadly overlooked, and this page is about THE President that comes to peoples' minds first, so, you know. That wasn't a "very simple" text but please help. ~Sıgehelmus♗ (Tøk) 04:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated William the Conqueror to be today's featured article on September 9. Please click here to join the discussion. Z1720 ( talk) 00:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you today forwhat you did for the article, introduced (in 2012): "I am nominating this for featured article because after extensive work and revamping, I feel this is the best article possible for the subject. Everyone should know about William the Conqueror - his invasion of England in 1066 is one of "those dates" that even Yanks can remember. But there is a lot more to William than his invasion of England, and this article tries to put him in context of his entire life. After numerous copyedits, an extensive peer review process and lots and lots of work (including the most excellent family tree charts by Agricolae, who has no idea I just co-nom'd him for this... surprise!) This is what it looked like when I began work this January. It's doubled in size and the sourcing has been greatly improved as I've done a complete reread of the two main biographies of William to update the sourcing. I've also incorporated a number of other works on the Conquest and the time period, but the major sources remain the scholarly biographies of William. This is a wikicup nomination for me, but it's been a labour of love for myself as well as all my wonderful helpers. I present - William the Bastard who became William the Conqueror, a rather dour but extremely important historical figure."! - On a smaller scale, we have expanded Lars Vogt from a short article focused on conducting tenures. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello and salutations. I came to apologize for my edits on przewalski’s horse, and if they seemed to be counterproductive. I was attempting to add a statement meaning to say that the information regarding the horse's status as a domestic/feral animal was disputed. I was somewhat inexperienced at editing articles back then Firekong1 ( talk) 03:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Have a wonderful holiday season filled with peace, joy, prosperity and wonder. | |
Hi Agricolae, Thank you for all your contributions during the year.
Netherzone (
talk) 22:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
|
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 13:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hey @ Agricolae.
I've been looking at the DfA page which you seem to have been quite active on since 2019. This topic is very interesting and it is one that many genealogists seem to be quite personally invested in – probably part of the reason why this article has always been called 'messy'. Even now, after extensive revisions, it still has its maintenance template. That in mind, you seem to be versed in the history of this article and I have some questions:
I hope you can clear some of these things up. I also want you to know that I come in peace – I only say this because I have seen in that article's talk page utter chaos in discourse. I want to understand what happened and how it can be improved (although it seems – with your edits (removals) in 2019 – far better than it was before). Snspigs ( talk) 15:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The article William of Évreux (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (
talk) 05:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)