I will at the weekend. — AARON • TALK 09:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I have done the review now — AARON • TALK 15:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to House of Plantagenet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 10:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Well done on getting
House of Plantagenet to GA.--
SabreBD (
talk) 19:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
For your efforts to promote House of Plantagenet to GA!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC) |
The Good Article Barnstar | ||
Well done for working hard to make House of Plantagenet to Good Article Status :-). — AARON • TALK 11:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited House of Plantagenet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louis VII ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article House of Lancaster you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller ( talk) 23:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The article House of Lancaster you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:House of Lancaster for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller ( talk) 06:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The article House of Lancaster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:House of Lancaster for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller ( talk) 13:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This IP, 68.14.160.191, [1] has removed references and referenced information from the Crusades article and has chose to engage in discussion on the talk page. Would you be interested in participating? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I left a comment at the article's PR. Looks very nice, good job! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for House of Lancaster at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 04:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited House of Lancaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celestine ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
G'day Norfolkbigfish. Your nomination of House of Lancaster has been approved as a WikiProject Military History A-Class article. Congratulations on what I believe is your first one! On behalf of the MILHIST Coordinators, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 23:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to House of Plantagenet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 09:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Angevins may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 11:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Angevins you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sotakeit -- Sotakeit ( talk) 08:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
In line with your addition of 'Angevins' to the Royal Houses of Europe template, perhaps the infoboxs on Richard the Lionheart, John, Henry II etc need to be updated. At the moment they give their royal house as 'House of Plantagenet'. I'm unsure if some would consider this contentious or not - maybe some consensus should be sought on the House of Plantagenet talk page? I'm not exactly in the know about the subject, so it may just be a case of being bold and going for it. Sotakeit ( talk) 13:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Angevins you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Angevins for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sotakeit -- Sotakeit ( talk) 09:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. If you've the time, I've nominated an article I've been working on, Royal Intermarriage, for GA status, and a review would be great. I suppose it may cross paths with your areas of interest, so you views would be helpful. Thanks. Sotakeit ( talk) 15:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
On 5 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Angevins, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Angevins are considered by many historians to be the distinct Royal House that provided the English monarchs Henry II, Richard I and King John? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Angevins. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 18:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Angevins at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Mini apolis 20:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC) |
Greetings! Since you participated in the move discussion for Angevin, I hope you can help fix incoming links to the page. There are about 36 left. If you could fix even a few of these, it would be a big help. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited House of Plantagenet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bohun. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Owen Tudor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you still want me to copy edit House of Plantagenet, or are you getting a bit impatient? I prefer to take my time when copy editing, to ensure that I do not make rushed decisions, but some others can copy edit much faster than I can. I'm still more than willing to do it, since that is a very interesting subject to me, but I don't want to delay your FAC longer than I have to... -- Biblio worm 14:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Norfolkbigfish. I've finished the copy edit you requested. Sorry again that it took so long. I'll keep it on my watch list for now. There are some comments and questions on the talk page. One point: several names are linked many times. As the article uses so many names, I think this helps to avoid confusion, so I haven't removed any (or not many), but this might be questioned at FAC. I'm not sure. Kind regards, -- Stfg ( talk) 22:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I have finished editing the Owen Tudor page, as per your GOCE request for it to be copy edited. A few comments:
Otherwise, it looks great!. You should be good for a GA nomination. Hampton11235 ( talk) 00:28, 25 June 2015 (UT
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
...it is starting to look a lot better! Hchc2009 ( talk) 14:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Crusades at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck and all the best, Mini apolis 22:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi NBF, I'll start work on this one today. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
House of Plantagenet
Thank you for quality articles and contributions to medieval history, such as House of Plantagenet, Angevin kings of England and the Crusades, working patiently on improvements and seeking help, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Four years ago, you were recipient no. 1394 of Precious, a prize of QAI! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I came to this topic from the blurb on the main page and have commented at WP:ERROR. As a major contributor, you may be able to help, please. Andrew D. ( talk) 08:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying to ce Crusades, but the definitions don't seem to match the body text. The defs in two sections on the page seem to want to limit crusades to only those sanctioned by the relevant Pope, and then draw a further distinction between (sanctioned) religious actions and (also sanctioned) political ones. However, the pages also discusses shepherds' crusades etc. which seem to be only (non-sanctioned) popular movements. Thoughts? Change or explain definition (preferable) or remove popular movements (less preferable)? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. I don't know what you want to do on the Crusades PR. Do you want me to help add missing info or make corrections or whatever as suggested at the PR? I may have already told you that I know exactly zero about the Crusades other than what I learned during ce the article. I have access to sources, and can track down info in many cases, but perhaps you might be more familiar with the information and the sources and so might do things faster and/or with better accuracy. I actually don't know if that's the case. You also seem to edit sporadically... Do you want help? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Historiography of the Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Robertson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
For you contributions to the article House of Plantagenet, I hereby award you with the WikiChevrons. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC) |
The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar | ||
For you contributions to the article House of Plantagenet, you are hereby awarded this Royalty's Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crusades you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The article Crusades you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Crusades for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 16:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey. Auntieruth is actually Auntieruth55; you missed the numbers so your ping won't work, AND if you edit the name to add the "55" you need to delete the time/sig stamp and add a new one or your ping won't work again (for a different reason)... I am busy now but if no one else helps I might be free in a week or two. Cheers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Crusades at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! – Corinne ( talk) 02:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
Hello, Norfolkbigfish -- I hope you don't mind, but I made a few more edits tweaking your clarifying edits, all of which were definite improvements. There is one sentence that I still think needs attention:
(a) Who says, or thinks, "it is difficult to compare..."?
(b) If not introducing the second of two simultaneous actions, "while" usually introduces a contrast. Here, I don't see a contrast, or, at least, the contrast is not clear. The first clause is:
The second clause is saying:
The two clauses seem to have little to do with each other. Do you mean, perhaps:
and, to make it even clearer, and make it clear that there are differences of opinion among historians,
But I still wonder about the necessity of introducing the idea of comparison here.
– Corinne ( talk) 14:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
A slight improvement. Here is the first part of the paragraph as it is now. I will number the sentences for ease of discussion:
Regarding sentence (2):
(a) I don't think the interactions were between people ("Europeans") and a religion ("Islam"). They should be between two groups of people, two religions, two cultures, or two spheres of influence. You might get away with "Europeans and the Islamic world", or "Europeans and the people of the Islamic world", or "Europeans and the culture of the Islamic world", or "Europe and the Islamic world".
(b) You should have "the" before "many interactions". I also think it would help to give a time period, even a rough time period, here, perhaps at the end of the sentence, something like "during the medieval period", "during the Middle Ages", from the xth to the xth centuries".
Regarding sentence (3), "This makes it difficult for historians to identify the source of various examples of cultural cross fertilisation,":
I would re-word sentence (2), turning it around, and join sentence (3) to it:
If you want to, you can put the time period after "Mediterranean Sea".
By the way, regarding sentence (1), it was I who added, in this edit, the phrase "ultimately positive" as I was re-wording it. You didn't change it, so I guess that means you approved, but I just hope it reflects the source; you might want to check; if it doesn't, you could remove these two words and the sentence would still make sense.
Regarding sentence (4), I think this sentence is related to sentence (1); in fact, it supports it. Why not move it, and join it to sentence (1)? There is no reason for the contrast expressed by "However". Would it make sense simply to write for sentence (1):
(If you're going to indicate a time period for the interactions, it should be in this sentence, not the next one.) So, if you do this, the first part of this paragraph would read:
Two sentences instead of four. Best regards, – Corinne ( talk) 17:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The article Crusades you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crusades for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
You still need to follow step 5 on the FAC instructions - add {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive1}} to the top of the nominations page. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal | ||
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you an A-Class Medal for your great work on the House of Lancaster, House of Plantagenet, and Crusades articles. Zawed ( talk) 09:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC) |
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leon ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry it got archived, and that I was not fast enough with reviewing (I actually wrote down a couple of more points which I was going to post). Its an important article and it takes energy and time. If you plan to re-submit it in a few weeks, I can offer to finish my review in the meantime, so that I can support immediately once you re-nominated it. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 09:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Crusades has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with your ongoing FA efforts.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 16:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there!
I’m not very active nowadays with work but I’ve noticed you’ve added a fair number of cn tags to the Angevin Empire article. I rewrote a fair amount of the article a number of years ago and so I would guess it lacking enough citations is in large part my fault! I will aim to go through it at some point soon and add the relevant citations. Luckily I still have all the books on hand that I used! Many thanks! SamWilson989 ( talk) 00:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatima ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring, especially its rules governing more than three consequtive reverts ( WP:3RR), because you have just broken these rules ( [2], [3], [4] and [5]). I also ask you to concentrate on the improvement of the article. We both dedicated plenty of time to it. I would not be happy if it were relisted. Borsoka ( talk) 14:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring, especially its rules governing more than three consequtive reverts ( WP:3RR), because you are about broking these rules. You can ask for third opinion on the issue. Borsoka ( talk) 15:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Borsoka ( talk) 13:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is a basic principle of our community. We are not here to push certain PoVs, but to try to provide a fair picture of all relevant scholarly PoVs. Your edits in the " Crusades" article, your methods of communication and some of your remarks about your fellow editors suggest that you are unable to approach this subject in a neutral way. Pushing a single point of view is a main pattern of disruptive editing and disruptive editing may result in a topic ban. Borsoka ( talk) 01:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you really think you can edit the " Crusade" article? Identifying an Oxford historian as a PR manager may suggest that you do not have enough knowledge of the crusades. I assume that you actually read Prawer, but there are dozens of other historians who wrote books about the crusades. Actually, congratulations - you almost achieved a new FA. :) Borsoka ( talk) 18:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I am more and more convinced that only a topic ban can solve this problem. Borsoka ( talk) 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
I think you have earned this... You have shown very impressive patience.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
(not a warning or anything heavyhanded) Wikipedia is a place where people who are passionate about things often need to collaborate. That passion is A Good Thing, even if it leads to disagreement. To keep things as calm as possible and help everyone focus on deciding the often difficult disagreements, just comment on the issues and not the other user's manner, style of editing etc. I know that policy gives a fair amount of latitude in this area, and we all feel justified sometimes, but everything works much smoother if you take this advice. (Click the link in my sig for more on this type of advice). -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Fair point Dweller—my mistake, I'll bare that in mind. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 12:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to bung this on your userpage:
{{User:UBX/NCFC}}
-- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Click here -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 16:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Historiography of the Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Historiography of the Crusades at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
Template has been changed to reflect the status of the copyedit request (done). --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝) 17:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey Norfolkbigfish,
I saw your GOCE request for Historiography of the Crusades, it looks like a very interesting article. Please let me know when you nominate it for good article, I would love to review it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Will do @ Iazyges:, thank you. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 22:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@
Iazyges:—just tagged
Historiography of the Crusades as a GAN. Let me know what you think, it is tidier than it was but as it is a bit of a niche subject it doesn't get much attention from other editors.
Norfolkbigfish (
talk) 14:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Historiography of the Crusades you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges ( talk) 15:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
You did not identify the source of the material in [ here your edit]. My guess is that it was copied from Crusades
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.
In addition, if my supposition is correct, could you add the addition as explained at the link? S Philbrick (Talk) 11:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC) ______
The article Historiography of the Crusades you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Historiography of the Crusades for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges ( talk) 19:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Outremer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges ( talk) 09:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited First Crusade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The article Outremer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Outremer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges ( talk) 18:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The Good Article Barnstar | ||
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your achieving the near impossible in bringing Outremer to Good Article status. Well done. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC) |
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Outremer at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{ db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot ( talk) 00:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Outremer, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka ( talk) 03:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frederick II ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please read instead of editing. Borsoka ( talk)
Today you wrote about six sentences in the article about the crusader states. They contain two serious errors and a minor mistake ( [7]). I do not want to mention your remarks about Tancred's princely title. After reviewing your edits for more than six months, I am convinced that your edits do not improve articles about the crusades or crusader states, but destroy them. Coming through pages and negligently summarizing their content can hardly be described as editing. I know that you were made believe that you could write high-quality articles about the crusades. I think you have already realised that editors who have read dozens of books about the crusades and their historiography can detect the obvious limits of your knowledge with ease. I kindly ask you to consider my previous advice and improve your skills in articles with more limited subjects. Borsoka ( talk) 16:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Most Wikipedia users deal with their compatriots in a polite fashion. Some don't. I may pick up the article, but only after everyone has moved on. In my experiences here and in business is that some one person needs to step up and rewrite these things. I've been in that position a few times, mostly successfully, but when the powers-that-be decide they don't your stuff, it's just too much bother to fight it. If you're trying to edit an article that they were the original author, forget about it. Back to the article, my current thinking is to follow Srnec's suggestion to have a separate, more detailed article on Medieval Sources. Adding all the material that needs to be there into this article would, I think, be overwhelming. I would add a section on archaeology in the original article, but other than that the structure seems sound. My only concern is that the new article would be flagged for immediate deletion as there is already an article on the subject. I've only thought about is cursorily and there may not be enough for a separate article, but I think there is. If I decide to go that route, I'll let you know. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 19:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Borsoka ( talk) 03:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Assise sur la ligece has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
In the final sentence with word "balliage" appears. I was completely unable to find a meaning for the word except as an alternate spelling of a word referring to a specific woman's hairstyle, which I suspect has no relevance. Perhaps, if you know, you could add a definition in brackets following the word.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 18:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for appreciating my recent edits. I think you deserve a drink down at the Fat Cat for your efforts on the article, and medieval history in general. Amitchell125 ( talk) 15:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, Amitchell125—that sounds good, maybe when this Covid madness dies down Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 17:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish,
You say there was a consensus on Talk:Crusades to split this article but I see only a very long discussion from February & March 2020 and no RFC discussion or any recent discussion at all. Where was this consensus arrived at? And why did you undertake this large, bold move today? Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crusader states you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman ( talk) 20:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I am shamelessly after a favour. I realise that it is outside of your normal area, but I have Third Punic War at FAC and was wondering if you had the time and inclination to give it a look over? If not, I entirely understand. Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gog the Mild-I'll try and find some time to have a look it over. With the caveat it is not a period I am too familiar with. Looks like it has go a bit convoluted already!! Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 17:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusading, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Military order.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusading, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Toledo and Adalia.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dar al-Islam.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Borsoka ( talk) 09:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're looking for here, but the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia Itineria and Travelogues of Palestine are where I got the terms. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 23:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Norfolkfish--I'm getting considerable pressure to spilt this article, which I have done twice now, and any further splitting would be detrimental. I know you've chimed in before on the issue of article length vs. readable prose. So what ever you can do would be appreciated. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Dr. Grampinator, FWIW I think you are doing a remarakable job on the sources suite of articles, in the face of some epic WP pedantry. I hope I am helping rather than hindering, let me know if not. RFC is intended to get some fresh eyes on the subject, which I hope will apply WP:COMMONSENSE. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 23:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I can't decide if the amusement factor of all of this is greater than the frustration factor. (I have to be careful about what I say as the DWS (deep Wikipedia state) is apparently monitoring our Talk pages.) I was hoping someone would confess to the view that there should never be a largest article, but no one would bite. Nevertheless, the good thing about this little exercise was that it focused my attention on the whole picture. I never wanted to write on modern historians as I was really focused on the medieval and classical ones, and didn't know much about them other than the usual cast of characters. Plus I though that the references would just be links to Amazon. But I was pleasantly surprised and am learning a lot. I did move all of the 20th century stuff to the modern section and created a new one on archaeology, which needs to be beefed up with some material from the Sources page. The new article is under 600k, so I give it another 24 hours before the calls to split are renewed. Thanks for your input. [Memo for the Record: This post is for informational purposes only and is not intended in any way to influence any current or pending Wikipedia actions by the owner of this page. The undersigned believes his/her actions are in full compliance with all applicable regulations.] Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 02:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, thanks for your input. I can't believe the ugly tone the discussion took, but shouldn't be surprised given the events of the day. I moved the Traveller section over to the archaeology document, so this one is now 20th in line. I hope they now turn their attention to some of the other stellar articles in the "longest" list. Sadly, I just got a copy of a book (Austin Evans, Bibliography of English Translations from Medieval Sources) that will push it back to the forefront once I start adding the material in. If you're interested in this stuff, it looks to well worth the $8 I paid on Amazon. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 05:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Crusading has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
I'll point out a couple of things that came up in the course of my copy edit. Another editor insists on a specific citation in the lede for the term "sanctioned" by the Latin Church. They are not satisfied with the citations in several areas in the body of the article where this is mentioned. I added several "Clarification" tags in the Historiography section where the sentences make no sense. I added rough translations for Latin and French terms so this is consistent throughout the article. (You may not feel this is necessary, please feel free to remove them if this is the case.) Best of luck with the article moving forward.I see that there is much discussion around it and the topic in general.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 21:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The article Crusader states you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Crusader states for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman ( talk) 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you intend to address Borsoka's numerous remaining comments any time soon? If not, I'll fail it and you can renominate it once you've had time to deal with them.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Sturmvogel 66, happy for you to fail this. Borsoka is in a bit of a rolling edit rather than a review, probably better if I don't get involved in that. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Crusader states has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Should you choose to do it, best of luck with the GAN!
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 19:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Twofingered Typist—much appreciated. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 05:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello Norfolkigfish, I've gone and replaced the top map in the article with a revised version based on the map that was there. The new version, has imo text that is easier to read, and it makes the Crusader States more prominent. I can add more to the map if you have any suggestions.
Some of the other maps in the article are not properly referenced on WikiCommons and are of dubious quality, so I might be making some changes to them as well to help you get them through the GAN process. Regards, Amitchell125 ( talk) 21:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
We should support initiatives of contributors, unless we have some reasons not to, because, obviously these contributors worked on these initiatives for some reason. This is just common sense. I see no reason to object the split as described by johnbod and you, so I believe we should support this plan. This being said, even though it will not affect my position, I am curious to know what was the original motivation. Is it only because the article felt too big? There is another reason that would make sense. It could very well be that you felt that too much space was given to the traditional crusades and this created an imbalance. WP:NPOV says that the importance given to a point of view must correspond to the notability of the point of view, but this does not apply here, because a subject is not a point of view. Covering less an aspect (which is a subject in itself) and more another aspect does not break any rule. For example, saying very little about milhist so that it is covered in another article is not pushing one point of view against another. It breaks no rule. It is something to be decided among editors. However, some people might somehow attach a point view, an implicit statement, to the space given to the traditional crusades in the "top" article and wish that this point of view is expressed in Wikipedia. I have no idea what could be this point of view, but doing this would be very disrespectful of Wikipedia philosophy, because points of view must be attributed to their authors. They should not be expressed by Wikipedia, especially not in an indirect manner. But, here, I am just making wild guesses, because I don't understand why people are against your proposal and they provide no explanation. Borsoka says it's because the traditional crusades are linked to all other crusades, but that's not a big problem. It just mean some duplication is required to give a context for these links. It breaks no rules. It's not enough to reject the proposal. Certainly not enough to justify these long discussions. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 02:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Dominic Mayers II—I attempt to answer this in a roundabout way by explaining my overall motivation and a little bit of my WP history. I like the challenge of shaping this sort of article in WP and getting it validated through GA, Milhist ACR and FAC. When I came to Crusades it was one of those C-Class articles from the dawn of WP that was based on uploaded out of copyright text. It was like what I found with House of Plantagenet which also had contested scope, a plethora of other summary articles e.g. House of York, House of Lancaster and a wealth of detail articles. I achieved GA, ACR and FA but establishing a scope that was suitably summarised and uncontentious. There were a few false starts but to this day I believe it may be the only dynastic article on WP at FA. With Crusades it failed three times. First time in lack of content, particularly on the Crusader States. Second time it timed out. Thirdly, I believe on the conflict between narrative history and thematic history. There are scores of popular histories that start with a mention of 7th century Islamic expansion, Manzikert, Pope Urban and run through the traditional crusades, Reconquista, a bit of political crusading, the Northern Crusades, some popular crusades a bit about Heretics and Cathars and then peter out for no reason in the 15th or 16th centuries. There are editors involved in this debate who believe that because there are numerous books formatted like this, this article should follow this chronology. There is no rationale for what connects all these events and there is no easy way to format this in a way that does not give WP:UNDUE or omits detail entirely. I think on WP List of Crusades to Europe and the Holy Land already covers this quite nicely. The subject is dominated by the First Crusade and following that the numbering system gives a false sense of coherence. Crusading in the Middle East was continual from the dawn of the First Crusade through to the fall of Acre with a couple of aftershocks. To cover this, draw the various strands together and fill in the gaps an article is needed dedicated to the traditional crusades. Quite rightly it has been pointed out that this does not cover the entire range of academic concerns on Crusades. It is always worth having Constable’s definitions in mind but not be too wedded to them. Traditionalists, I have covered above, and I think requires an article. Popularists only include those where there were groundswells of popular supports e.g. First and popular crusades. This I feel is too narrow. Pluralists include all conflict clerically sanctioned. Better, but popular crusades are therefore excluded so still a little bit narrow. Lastly, generalists include everything, and the article becomes one of Catholic Holy War albeit called crusades. This resolves several issues. Firstly, Reconquista and other formative conflicts started before there was even the idea of a crusade, indeed the word was not used until the end of the 12th century, crusading was not formulised until the beginning of the 13th and Tyerman has argued that there were no crusades in the 12th century between the First and the Third (although his tongue may have been in his cheek). This I think is the other article, I hope you can see both are hugely different. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 10:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose the following five steps toward an RfC.
By the way, you use incorrectly the concept of WP:undue in your above comment. Having an imbalance toward a subtopic does not break WP:Undue, because a subtopic is not a point of view. This is explained in WP:NPOVFACT and WP:SPINOFF. It would not break any Wikipedia rules to keep that imbalance, but it does not mean that we must keep it. Though, if an implicit statement is made by this imbalance, then it breaks WP:WIKIVOICE because it makes Wikipedia asserts implicitly a statement. It creates an editorial bias. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 10:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka ( talk) 16:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've tuned out of the Great Debates, but sometimes look in - it looks as though ever-deepening ruts are being worn in the mud. But if there is ever a moment when you think an intervention would be helpful do let me know. I admire your patience; if it was me I think I'd find something else to do for a year or so. Johnbod ( talk) 23:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Johnbod—much appreciated. I think your last sentence probably contains some useful advice for me :-) Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 07:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I think Crusading instituitions and ideologies is better than Crusading movement. I understand that Crusading movement has the advantage of being broader, but it so broad that it certainly includes the milhist, maybe not in your mind, but it actually does, and something so broad might invite oppositions. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 15:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish. My plan is to clean up the First Crusade and the first-tier articles it references. Mostly just for terminology, consistency and to make sure citations are to references that are generally relevant and available. Eventually, I want to do the same for Crusades, once the differences between it and Crusading Movement are clear. Crusades will be a bit harder, as the powers that be will fight every modification. I also want to fix Historiography, but again, that's a battle. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 16:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish I expect I'll finish up the First Crusade this week, and let it gel for a while. I would like to start on the Crusades, but am still playing around with some ideas. My personal view is that Crusades should focus on the straightforward military history and personalities of the major players a la the Routledge Companion, with more of the Crusading movement stuff (Tyerman, later Riley-Smith, etc.) in that article. I do think Riley-Smith's Oxford History is a good starting place with newer material (e.g., Jotischky) and some of the later historians who offer a bit of alternate history mixed in. I think a novice reader would be more comfortable with a straight-shot history (Crusades) followed by the more modern ideas (Crusading movement), but that's just me. After a year of thinking about Historiography, I'm starting to think that maybe there should be one that discusses the "chronologies" in Crusades and one that discusses things like "just war" and Erdmann's work in Crusading movement. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 22:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
As you can see, I've begun to work on the Crusades, and was thinking there should be a summary section on the Crusading Movement, a la what you've been working on. After Section 5.0, and maybe move the Military Orders section under it? Thoughts? Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 19:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to jump in with edits/comments at any time, particularly when I change things from British English (as I surely will). I thought I'd do a brief, introductory section on the Hospitallers/Templars in the 1095–1291 chapter, with more detail in the Crusader movement section. The structure I put in is just a placeholder--the final should probably reflect the same in the main "movement" article. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 16:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephen Teglatius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serenissima.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crusader.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
You were bold, you were reverted ... and you reverted again. This is edit warring behaviour. I expect you to self-revert and start a discussion at WP:RFD, the proper venue for controversial changes to longstanding redirects. Srnec ( talk) 14:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I propose that we remove or hide our exchange in the section commentary of the RfC. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 15:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain what you were trying to fix with this edit? I don't think it had its intended purpose. Legoktm ( talk) 07:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Historiography of the Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Adrianople.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... I tidied a citation to the ODNB in Crusades to use the ODNB template, however the original editor (@ Dr. Grampinator) quite rightly pointed out that this says that the article is behind a paywall, which it isn't so the eroneous message might put off readers following the link. My changes are below
Would be useful to fix the template but it is not something I have experience of, all advice welcome. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 17:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
|freearticle=y
to your existing cite.
— jmcgnh
(talk)
(contribs) 03:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crusading movement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 18:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Crusading movement you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Crusading movement for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 14:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Crusading movement you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Crusading movement for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 22:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Crusading movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusading movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gregory VI.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Norfolkbigfish, happy to continue working with you on the article by sending over my ideas by means of the talk page, which you can then take or leave as you wish. is that OK? Amitchell125 ( talk) 19:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Norwich City F.C./archive1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:07, 14 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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Crusading movement at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Dhtwiki ( talk) 23:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC) |
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crusading movement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Godtres -- Godtres ( talk) 10:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The article Crusading movement you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Crusading movement and Talk:Crusading movement/GA3 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Godtres -- Godtres ( talk) 13:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The article Crusading movement you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crusading movement for comments about the article, and Talk:Crusading movement/GA3 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Godtres -- Godtres ( talk) 08:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive | |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
On 19 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crusading movement, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the crusading movement defined concepts of warfare throughout medieval Europe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crusading movement. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Crusading movement), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Z1720 ( talk) 00:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
By the way, this is one of the consequences of that image review on Crusading movement: this image now a featured picture. I'd imagine it's going to default to Council of Clermont as the page linked when it runs on POTD, though. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 08:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I noted this has been pending for quite a long time and thought I could probably bring the ACR to a conclusion. Assuming no big time problem gets in the way and no intervening review, I intend to do the third review before the end of this month. The article has been reviewed by two of the best reviewers and contributors on Wikipedia so I would expect not to have many more comments. In addition to online sources, I have three of the books. Given the prior reviews and source review, I doubt I will need to consult them, however. Donner60 ( talk) 09:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusading movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Mansurah.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Crusading movement has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka ( talk) 04:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I just wanted to apologize because I know it must seem as though I completely bailed on you at the Admin noticeboard. I was out of town at a conference with only my phone and no time, then took advantage of seeing some old friends and still no time for WP at all. Badly timed I know, but if I can help in any way at all, let me know. I will. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
You may lose your editing privileges for blatant and persistent plagiarism. Are you sure edit warring is the best solution. Please read very carefully WP:NOTHERE and WP:3RR if you want to avoid serious sanctions for reverting and plagiarism. Borsoka ( talk) 10:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusading movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canon.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Borsoka ( talk) 03:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I will at the weekend. — AARON • TALK 09:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I have done the review now — AARON • TALK 15:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to House of Plantagenet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 10:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Well done on getting
House of Plantagenet to GA.--
SabreBD (
talk) 19:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
For your efforts to promote House of Plantagenet to GA!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC) |
The Good Article Barnstar | ||
Well done for working hard to make House of Plantagenet to Good Article Status :-). — AARON • TALK 11:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited House of Plantagenet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louis VII ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article House of Lancaster you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller ( talk) 23:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The article House of Lancaster you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:House of Lancaster for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller ( talk) 06:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The article House of Lancaster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:House of Lancaster for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller ( talk) 13:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This IP, 68.14.160.191, [1] has removed references and referenced information from the Crusades article and has chose to engage in discussion on the talk page. Would you be interested in participating? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I left a comment at the article's PR. Looks very nice, good job! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for House of Lancaster at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 04:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited House of Lancaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celestine ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
G'day Norfolkbigfish. Your nomination of House of Lancaster has been approved as a WikiProject Military History A-Class article. Congratulations on what I believe is your first one! On behalf of the MILHIST Coordinators, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 23:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to House of Plantagenet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 09:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Angevins may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 11:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Angevins you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sotakeit -- Sotakeit ( talk) 08:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
In line with your addition of 'Angevins' to the Royal Houses of Europe template, perhaps the infoboxs on Richard the Lionheart, John, Henry II etc need to be updated. At the moment they give their royal house as 'House of Plantagenet'. I'm unsure if some would consider this contentious or not - maybe some consensus should be sought on the House of Plantagenet talk page? I'm not exactly in the know about the subject, so it may just be a case of being bold and going for it. Sotakeit ( talk) 13:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Angevins you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Angevins for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sotakeit -- Sotakeit ( talk) 09:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. If you've the time, I've nominated an article I've been working on, Royal Intermarriage, for GA status, and a review would be great. I suppose it may cross paths with your areas of interest, so you views would be helpful. Thanks. Sotakeit ( talk) 15:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
On 5 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Angevins, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Angevins are considered by many historians to be the distinct Royal House that provided the English monarchs Henry II, Richard I and King John? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Angevins. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 18:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Angevins at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Mini apolis 20:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC) |
Greetings! Since you participated in the move discussion for Angevin, I hope you can help fix incoming links to the page. There are about 36 left. If you could fix even a few of these, it would be a big help. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited House of Plantagenet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bohun. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Owen Tudor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you still want me to copy edit House of Plantagenet, or are you getting a bit impatient? I prefer to take my time when copy editing, to ensure that I do not make rushed decisions, but some others can copy edit much faster than I can. I'm still more than willing to do it, since that is a very interesting subject to me, but I don't want to delay your FAC longer than I have to... -- Biblio worm 14:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Norfolkbigfish. I've finished the copy edit you requested. Sorry again that it took so long. I'll keep it on my watch list for now. There are some comments and questions on the talk page. One point: several names are linked many times. As the article uses so many names, I think this helps to avoid confusion, so I haven't removed any (or not many), but this might be questioned at FAC. I'm not sure. Kind regards, -- Stfg ( talk) 22:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I have finished editing the Owen Tudor page, as per your GOCE request for it to be copy edited. A few comments:
Otherwise, it looks great!. You should be good for a GA nomination. Hampton11235 ( talk) 00:28, 25 June 2015 (UT
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
...it is starting to look a lot better! Hchc2009 ( talk) 14:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Crusades at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck and all the best, Mini apolis 22:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi NBF, I'll start work on this one today. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
House of Plantagenet
Thank you for quality articles and contributions to medieval history, such as House of Plantagenet, Angevin kings of England and the Crusades, working patiently on improvements and seeking help, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Four years ago, you were recipient no. 1394 of Precious, a prize of QAI! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I came to this topic from the blurb on the main page and have commented at WP:ERROR. As a major contributor, you may be able to help, please. Andrew D. ( talk) 08:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying to ce Crusades, but the definitions don't seem to match the body text. The defs in two sections on the page seem to want to limit crusades to only those sanctioned by the relevant Pope, and then draw a further distinction between (sanctioned) religious actions and (also sanctioned) political ones. However, the pages also discusses shepherds' crusades etc. which seem to be only (non-sanctioned) popular movements. Thoughts? Change or explain definition (preferable) or remove popular movements (less preferable)? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. I don't know what you want to do on the Crusades PR. Do you want me to help add missing info or make corrections or whatever as suggested at the PR? I may have already told you that I know exactly zero about the Crusades other than what I learned during ce the article. I have access to sources, and can track down info in many cases, but perhaps you might be more familiar with the information and the sources and so might do things faster and/or with better accuracy. I actually don't know if that's the case. You also seem to edit sporadically... Do you want help? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Historiography of the Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Robertson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
For you contributions to the article House of Plantagenet, I hereby award you with the WikiChevrons. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC) |
The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar | ||
For you contributions to the article House of Plantagenet, you are hereby awarded this Royalty's Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crusades you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The article Crusades you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Crusades for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 16:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey. Auntieruth is actually Auntieruth55; you missed the numbers so your ping won't work, AND if you edit the name to add the "55" you need to delete the time/sig stamp and add a new one or your ping won't work again (for a different reason)... I am busy now but if no one else helps I might be free in a week or two. Cheers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Crusades at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! – Corinne ( talk) 02:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
Hello, Norfolkbigfish -- I hope you don't mind, but I made a few more edits tweaking your clarifying edits, all of which were definite improvements. There is one sentence that I still think needs attention:
(a) Who says, or thinks, "it is difficult to compare..."?
(b) If not introducing the second of two simultaneous actions, "while" usually introduces a contrast. Here, I don't see a contrast, or, at least, the contrast is not clear. The first clause is:
The second clause is saying:
The two clauses seem to have little to do with each other. Do you mean, perhaps:
and, to make it even clearer, and make it clear that there are differences of opinion among historians,
But I still wonder about the necessity of introducing the idea of comparison here.
– Corinne ( talk) 14:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
A slight improvement. Here is the first part of the paragraph as it is now. I will number the sentences for ease of discussion:
Regarding sentence (2):
(a) I don't think the interactions were between people ("Europeans") and a religion ("Islam"). They should be between two groups of people, two religions, two cultures, or two spheres of influence. You might get away with "Europeans and the Islamic world", or "Europeans and the people of the Islamic world", or "Europeans and the culture of the Islamic world", or "Europe and the Islamic world".
(b) You should have "the" before "many interactions". I also think it would help to give a time period, even a rough time period, here, perhaps at the end of the sentence, something like "during the medieval period", "during the Middle Ages", from the xth to the xth centuries".
Regarding sentence (3), "This makes it difficult for historians to identify the source of various examples of cultural cross fertilisation,":
I would re-word sentence (2), turning it around, and join sentence (3) to it:
If you want to, you can put the time period after "Mediterranean Sea".
By the way, regarding sentence (1), it was I who added, in this edit, the phrase "ultimately positive" as I was re-wording it. You didn't change it, so I guess that means you approved, but I just hope it reflects the source; you might want to check; if it doesn't, you could remove these two words and the sentence would still make sense.
Regarding sentence (4), I think this sentence is related to sentence (1); in fact, it supports it. Why not move it, and join it to sentence (1)? There is no reason for the contrast expressed by "However". Would it make sense simply to write for sentence (1):
(If you're going to indicate a time period for the interactions, it should be in this sentence, not the next one.) So, if you do this, the first part of this paragraph would read:
Two sentences instead of four. Best regards, – Corinne ( talk) 17:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The article Crusades you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crusades for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
You still need to follow step 5 on the FAC instructions - add {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive1}} to the top of the nominations page. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal | ||
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you an A-Class Medal for your great work on the House of Lancaster, House of Plantagenet, and Crusades articles. Zawed ( talk) 09:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC) |
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leon ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry it got archived, and that I was not fast enough with reviewing (I actually wrote down a couple of more points which I was going to post). Its an important article and it takes energy and time. If you plan to re-submit it in a few weeks, I can offer to finish my review in the meantime, so that I can support immediately once you re-nominated it. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 09:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Crusades has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with your ongoing FA efforts.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 16:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there!
I’m not very active nowadays with work but I’ve noticed you’ve added a fair number of cn tags to the Angevin Empire article. I rewrote a fair amount of the article a number of years ago and so I would guess it lacking enough citations is in large part my fault! I will aim to go through it at some point soon and add the relevant citations. Luckily I still have all the books on hand that I used! Many thanks! SamWilson989 ( talk) 00:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatima ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring, especially its rules governing more than three consequtive reverts ( WP:3RR), because you have just broken these rules ( [2], [3], [4] and [5]). I also ask you to concentrate on the improvement of the article. We both dedicated plenty of time to it. I would not be happy if it were relisted. Borsoka ( talk) 14:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring, especially its rules governing more than three consequtive reverts ( WP:3RR), because you are about broking these rules. You can ask for third opinion on the issue. Borsoka ( talk) 15:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Borsoka ( talk) 13:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is a basic principle of our community. We are not here to push certain PoVs, but to try to provide a fair picture of all relevant scholarly PoVs. Your edits in the " Crusades" article, your methods of communication and some of your remarks about your fellow editors suggest that you are unable to approach this subject in a neutral way. Pushing a single point of view is a main pattern of disruptive editing and disruptive editing may result in a topic ban. Borsoka ( talk) 01:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you really think you can edit the " Crusade" article? Identifying an Oxford historian as a PR manager may suggest that you do not have enough knowledge of the crusades. I assume that you actually read Prawer, but there are dozens of other historians who wrote books about the crusades. Actually, congratulations - you almost achieved a new FA. :) Borsoka ( talk) 18:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I am more and more convinced that only a topic ban can solve this problem. Borsoka ( talk) 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
I think you have earned this... You have shown very impressive patience.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
(not a warning or anything heavyhanded) Wikipedia is a place where people who are passionate about things often need to collaborate. That passion is A Good Thing, even if it leads to disagreement. To keep things as calm as possible and help everyone focus on deciding the often difficult disagreements, just comment on the issues and not the other user's manner, style of editing etc. I know that policy gives a fair amount of latitude in this area, and we all feel justified sometimes, but everything works much smoother if you take this advice. (Click the link in my sig for more on this type of advice). -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Fair point Dweller—my mistake, I'll bare that in mind. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 12:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to bung this on your userpage:
{{User:UBX/NCFC}}
-- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Click here -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 16:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Historiography of the Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Historiography of the Crusades at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
Template has been changed to reflect the status of the copyedit request (done). --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝) 17:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey Norfolkbigfish,
I saw your GOCE request for Historiography of the Crusades, it looks like a very interesting article. Please let me know when you nominate it for good article, I would love to review it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Will do @ Iazyges:, thank you. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 22:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@
Iazyges:—just tagged
Historiography of the Crusades as a GAN. Let me know what you think, it is tidier than it was but as it is a bit of a niche subject it doesn't get much attention from other editors.
Norfolkbigfish (
talk) 14:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Historiography of the Crusades you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges ( talk) 15:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
You did not identify the source of the material in [ here your edit]. My guess is that it was copied from Crusades
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.
In addition, if my supposition is correct, could you add the addition as explained at the link? S Philbrick (Talk) 11:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC) ______
The article Historiography of the Crusades you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Historiography of the Crusades for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges ( talk) 19:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Outremer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges ( talk) 09:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited First Crusade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The article Outremer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Outremer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges ( talk) 18:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The Good Article Barnstar | ||
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your achieving the near impossible in bringing Outremer to Good Article status. Well done. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC) |
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Outremer at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{ db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot ( talk) 00:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Outremer, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka ( talk) 03:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frederick II ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please read instead of editing. Borsoka ( talk)
Today you wrote about six sentences in the article about the crusader states. They contain two serious errors and a minor mistake ( [7]). I do not want to mention your remarks about Tancred's princely title. After reviewing your edits for more than six months, I am convinced that your edits do not improve articles about the crusades or crusader states, but destroy them. Coming through pages and negligently summarizing their content can hardly be described as editing. I know that you were made believe that you could write high-quality articles about the crusades. I think you have already realised that editors who have read dozens of books about the crusades and their historiography can detect the obvious limits of your knowledge with ease. I kindly ask you to consider my previous advice and improve your skills in articles with more limited subjects. Borsoka ( talk) 16:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Most Wikipedia users deal with their compatriots in a polite fashion. Some don't. I may pick up the article, but only after everyone has moved on. In my experiences here and in business is that some one person needs to step up and rewrite these things. I've been in that position a few times, mostly successfully, but when the powers-that-be decide they don't your stuff, it's just too much bother to fight it. If you're trying to edit an article that they were the original author, forget about it. Back to the article, my current thinking is to follow Srnec's suggestion to have a separate, more detailed article on Medieval Sources. Adding all the material that needs to be there into this article would, I think, be overwhelming. I would add a section on archaeology in the original article, but other than that the structure seems sound. My only concern is that the new article would be flagged for immediate deletion as there is already an article on the subject. I've only thought about is cursorily and there may not be enough for a separate article, but I think there is. If I decide to go that route, I'll let you know. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 19:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Borsoka ( talk) 03:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Assise sur la ligece has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
In the final sentence with word "balliage" appears. I was completely unable to find a meaning for the word except as an alternate spelling of a word referring to a specific woman's hairstyle, which I suspect has no relevance. Perhaps, if you know, you could add a definition in brackets following the word.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 18:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for appreciating my recent edits. I think you deserve a drink down at the Fat Cat for your efforts on the article, and medieval history in general. Amitchell125 ( talk) 15:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, Amitchell125—that sounds good, maybe when this Covid madness dies down Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 17:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish,
You say there was a consensus on Talk:Crusades to split this article but I see only a very long discussion from February & March 2020 and no RFC discussion or any recent discussion at all. Where was this consensus arrived at? And why did you undertake this large, bold move today? Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crusader states you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman ( talk) 20:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I am shamelessly after a favour. I realise that it is outside of your normal area, but I have Third Punic War at FAC and was wondering if you had the time and inclination to give it a look over? If not, I entirely understand. Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gog the Mild-I'll try and find some time to have a look it over. With the caveat it is not a period I am too familiar with. Looks like it has go a bit convoluted already!! Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 17:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusading, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Military order.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusading, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Toledo and Adalia.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dar al-Islam.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Borsoka ( talk) 09:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're looking for here, but the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia Itineria and Travelogues of Palestine are where I got the terms. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 23:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Norfolkfish--I'm getting considerable pressure to spilt this article, which I have done twice now, and any further splitting would be detrimental. I know you've chimed in before on the issue of article length vs. readable prose. So what ever you can do would be appreciated. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Dr. Grampinator, FWIW I think you are doing a remarakable job on the sources suite of articles, in the face of some epic WP pedantry. I hope I am helping rather than hindering, let me know if not. RFC is intended to get some fresh eyes on the subject, which I hope will apply WP:COMMONSENSE. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 23:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I can't decide if the amusement factor of all of this is greater than the frustration factor. (I have to be careful about what I say as the DWS (deep Wikipedia state) is apparently monitoring our Talk pages.) I was hoping someone would confess to the view that there should never be a largest article, but no one would bite. Nevertheless, the good thing about this little exercise was that it focused my attention on the whole picture. I never wanted to write on modern historians as I was really focused on the medieval and classical ones, and didn't know much about them other than the usual cast of characters. Plus I though that the references would just be links to Amazon. But I was pleasantly surprised and am learning a lot. I did move all of the 20th century stuff to the modern section and created a new one on archaeology, which needs to be beefed up with some material from the Sources page. The new article is under 600k, so I give it another 24 hours before the calls to split are renewed. Thanks for your input. [Memo for the Record: This post is for informational purposes only and is not intended in any way to influence any current or pending Wikipedia actions by the owner of this page. The undersigned believes his/her actions are in full compliance with all applicable regulations.] Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 02:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, thanks for your input. I can't believe the ugly tone the discussion took, but shouldn't be surprised given the events of the day. I moved the Traveller section over to the archaeology document, so this one is now 20th in line. I hope they now turn their attention to some of the other stellar articles in the "longest" list. Sadly, I just got a copy of a book (Austin Evans, Bibliography of English Translations from Medieval Sources) that will push it back to the forefront once I start adding the material in. If you're interested in this stuff, it looks to well worth the $8 I paid on Amazon. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 05:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Crusading has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
I'll point out a couple of things that came up in the course of my copy edit. Another editor insists on a specific citation in the lede for the term "sanctioned" by the Latin Church. They are not satisfied with the citations in several areas in the body of the article where this is mentioned. I added several "Clarification" tags in the Historiography section where the sentences make no sense. I added rough translations for Latin and French terms so this is consistent throughout the article. (You may not feel this is necessary, please feel free to remove them if this is the case.) Best of luck with the article moving forward.I see that there is much discussion around it and the topic in general.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 21:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The article Crusader states you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Crusader states for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman ( talk) 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you intend to address Borsoka's numerous remaining comments any time soon? If not, I'll fail it and you can renominate it once you've had time to deal with them.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Sturmvogel 66, happy for you to fail this. Borsoka is in a bit of a rolling edit rather than a review, probably better if I don't get involved in that. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Crusader states has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Should you choose to do it, best of luck with the GAN!
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 19:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Twofingered Typist—much appreciated. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 05:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello Norfolkigfish, I've gone and replaced the top map in the article with a revised version based on the map that was there. The new version, has imo text that is easier to read, and it makes the Crusader States more prominent. I can add more to the map if you have any suggestions.
Some of the other maps in the article are not properly referenced on WikiCommons and are of dubious quality, so I might be making some changes to them as well to help you get them through the GAN process. Regards, Amitchell125 ( talk) 21:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
We should support initiatives of contributors, unless we have some reasons not to, because, obviously these contributors worked on these initiatives for some reason. This is just common sense. I see no reason to object the split as described by johnbod and you, so I believe we should support this plan. This being said, even though it will not affect my position, I am curious to know what was the original motivation. Is it only because the article felt too big? There is another reason that would make sense. It could very well be that you felt that too much space was given to the traditional crusades and this created an imbalance. WP:NPOV says that the importance given to a point of view must correspond to the notability of the point of view, but this does not apply here, because a subject is not a point of view. Covering less an aspect (which is a subject in itself) and more another aspect does not break any rule. For example, saying very little about milhist so that it is covered in another article is not pushing one point of view against another. It breaks no rule. It is something to be decided among editors. However, some people might somehow attach a point view, an implicit statement, to the space given to the traditional crusades in the "top" article and wish that this point of view is expressed in Wikipedia. I have no idea what could be this point of view, but doing this would be very disrespectful of Wikipedia philosophy, because points of view must be attributed to their authors. They should not be expressed by Wikipedia, especially not in an indirect manner. But, here, I am just making wild guesses, because I don't understand why people are against your proposal and they provide no explanation. Borsoka says it's because the traditional crusades are linked to all other crusades, but that's not a big problem. It just mean some duplication is required to give a context for these links. It breaks no rules. It's not enough to reject the proposal. Certainly not enough to justify these long discussions. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 02:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Dominic Mayers II—I attempt to answer this in a roundabout way by explaining my overall motivation and a little bit of my WP history. I like the challenge of shaping this sort of article in WP and getting it validated through GA, Milhist ACR and FAC. When I came to Crusades it was one of those C-Class articles from the dawn of WP that was based on uploaded out of copyright text. It was like what I found with House of Plantagenet which also had contested scope, a plethora of other summary articles e.g. House of York, House of Lancaster and a wealth of detail articles. I achieved GA, ACR and FA but establishing a scope that was suitably summarised and uncontentious. There were a few false starts but to this day I believe it may be the only dynastic article on WP at FA. With Crusades it failed three times. First time in lack of content, particularly on the Crusader States. Second time it timed out. Thirdly, I believe on the conflict between narrative history and thematic history. There are scores of popular histories that start with a mention of 7th century Islamic expansion, Manzikert, Pope Urban and run through the traditional crusades, Reconquista, a bit of political crusading, the Northern Crusades, some popular crusades a bit about Heretics and Cathars and then peter out for no reason in the 15th or 16th centuries. There are editors involved in this debate who believe that because there are numerous books formatted like this, this article should follow this chronology. There is no rationale for what connects all these events and there is no easy way to format this in a way that does not give WP:UNDUE or omits detail entirely. I think on WP List of Crusades to Europe and the Holy Land already covers this quite nicely. The subject is dominated by the First Crusade and following that the numbering system gives a false sense of coherence. Crusading in the Middle East was continual from the dawn of the First Crusade through to the fall of Acre with a couple of aftershocks. To cover this, draw the various strands together and fill in the gaps an article is needed dedicated to the traditional crusades. Quite rightly it has been pointed out that this does not cover the entire range of academic concerns on Crusades. It is always worth having Constable’s definitions in mind but not be too wedded to them. Traditionalists, I have covered above, and I think requires an article. Popularists only include those where there were groundswells of popular supports e.g. First and popular crusades. This I feel is too narrow. Pluralists include all conflict clerically sanctioned. Better, but popular crusades are therefore excluded so still a little bit narrow. Lastly, generalists include everything, and the article becomes one of Catholic Holy War albeit called crusades. This resolves several issues. Firstly, Reconquista and other formative conflicts started before there was even the idea of a crusade, indeed the word was not used until the end of the 12th century, crusading was not formulised until the beginning of the 13th and Tyerman has argued that there were no crusades in the 12th century between the First and the Third (although his tongue may have been in his cheek). This I think is the other article, I hope you can see both are hugely different. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 10:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose the following five steps toward an RfC.
By the way, you use incorrectly the concept of WP:undue in your above comment. Having an imbalance toward a subtopic does not break WP:Undue, because a subtopic is not a point of view. This is explained in WP:NPOVFACT and WP:SPINOFF. It would not break any Wikipedia rules to keep that imbalance, but it does not mean that we must keep it. Though, if an implicit statement is made by this imbalance, then it breaks WP:WIKIVOICE because it makes Wikipedia asserts implicitly a statement. It creates an editorial bias. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 10:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka ( talk) 16:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've tuned out of the Great Debates, but sometimes look in - it looks as though ever-deepening ruts are being worn in the mud. But if there is ever a moment when you think an intervention would be helpful do let me know. I admire your patience; if it was me I think I'd find something else to do for a year or so. Johnbod ( talk) 23:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Johnbod—much appreciated. I think your last sentence probably contains some useful advice for me :-) Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 07:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I think Crusading instituitions and ideologies is better than Crusading movement. I understand that Crusading movement has the advantage of being broader, but it so broad that it certainly includes the milhist, maybe not in your mind, but it actually does, and something so broad might invite oppositions. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 15:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish. My plan is to clean up the First Crusade and the first-tier articles it references. Mostly just for terminology, consistency and to make sure citations are to references that are generally relevant and available. Eventually, I want to do the same for Crusades, once the differences between it and Crusading Movement are clear. Crusades will be a bit harder, as the powers that be will fight every modification. I also want to fix Historiography, but again, that's a battle. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 16:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish I expect I'll finish up the First Crusade this week, and let it gel for a while. I would like to start on the Crusades, but am still playing around with some ideas. My personal view is that Crusades should focus on the straightforward military history and personalities of the major players a la the Routledge Companion, with more of the Crusading movement stuff (Tyerman, later Riley-Smith, etc.) in that article. I do think Riley-Smith's Oxford History is a good starting place with newer material (e.g., Jotischky) and some of the later historians who offer a bit of alternate history mixed in. I think a novice reader would be more comfortable with a straight-shot history (Crusades) followed by the more modern ideas (Crusading movement), but that's just me. After a year of thinking about Historiography, I'm starting to think that maybe there should be one that discusses the "chronologies" in Crusades and one that discusses things like "just war" and Erdmann's work in Crusading movement. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 22:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
As you can see, I've begun to work on the Crusades, and was thinking there should be a summary section on the Crusading Movement, a la what you've been working on. After Section 5.0, and maybe move the Military Orders section under it? Thoughts? Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 19:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to jump in with edits/comments at any time, particularly when I change things from British English (as I surely will). I thought I'd do a brief, introductory section on the Hospitallers/Templars in the 1095–1291 chapter, with more detail in the Crusader movement section. The structure I put in is just a placeholder--the final should probably reflect the same in the main "movement" article. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 16:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephen Teglatius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serenissima.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crusader.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
You were bold, you were reverted ... and you reverted again. This is edit warring behaviour. I expect you to self-revert and start a discussion at WP:RFD, the proper venue for controversial changes to longstanding redirects. Srnec ( talk) 14:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I propose that we remove or hide our exchange in the section commentary of the RfC. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 15:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain what you were trying to fix with this edit? I don't think it had its intended purpose. Legoktm ( talk) 07:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Historiography of the Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Adrianople.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... I tidied a citation to the ODNB in Crusades to use the ODNB template, however the original editor (@ Dr. Grampinator) quite rightly pointed out that this says that the article is behind a paywall, which it isn't so the eroneous message might put off readers following the link. My changes are below
Would be useful to fix the template but it is not something I have experience of, all advice welcome. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 17:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
|freearticle=y
to your existing cite.
— jmcgnh
(talk)
(contribs) 03:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crusading movement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 18:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Crusading movement you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Crusading movement for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 14:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Crusading movement you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Crusading movement for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 22:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Crusading movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusading movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gregory VI.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Norfolkbigfish, happy to continue working with you on the article by sending over my ideas by means of the talk page, which you can then take or leave as you wish. is that OK? Amitchell125 ( talk) 19:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Norwich City F.C./archive1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:07, 14 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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Crusading movement at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Dhtwiki ( talk) 23:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC) |
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crusading movement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Godtres -- Godtres ( talk) 10:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The article Crusading movement you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Crusading movement and Talk:Crusading movement/GA3 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Godtres -- Godtres ( talk) 13:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The article Crusading movement you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crusading movement for comments about the article, and Talk:Crusading movement/GA3 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Godtres -- Godtres ( talk) 08:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive | |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
On 19 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crusading movement, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the crusading movement defined concepts of warfare throughout medieval Europe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crusading movement. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Crusading movement), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Z1720 ( talk) 00:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
By the way, this is one of the consequences of that image review on Crusading movement: this image now a featured picture. I'd imagine it's going to default to Council of Clermont as the page linked when it runs on POTD, though. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 08:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I noted this has been pending for quite a long time and thought I could probably bring the ACR to a conclusion. Assuming no big time problem gets in the way and no intervening review, I intend to do the third review before the end of this month. The article has been reviewed by two of the best reviewers and contributors on Wikipedia so I would expect not to have many more comments. In addition to online sources, I have three of the books. Given the prior reviews and source review, I doubt I will need to consult them, however. Donner60 ( talk) 09:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusading movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Mansurah.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Crusading movement has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka ( talk) 04:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I just wanted to apologize because I know it must seem as though I completely bailed on you at the Admin noticeboard. I was out of town at a conference with only my phone and no time, then took advantage of seeing some old friends and still no time for WP at all. Badly timed I know, but if I can help in any way at all, let me know. I will. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
You may lose your editing privileges for blatant and persistent plagiarism. Are you sure edit warring is the best solution. Please read very carefully WP:NOTHERE and WP:3RR if you want to avoid serious sanctions for reverting and plagiarism. Borsoka ( talk) 10:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusading movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canon.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Borsoka ( talk) 03:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)