User talk:Srnec/Archive, 18 May 2011–15 May 2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Castilian counts[edit]

Maybe I should have asked first, but I decided to 'be bold' and split off the Counts of Castile (never liked them being called 'monarchs' and same had been done with Aragon and Portugal already). Before I clean up all the redirects and links, I would like your input on the name I gave it (List of Castilian counts vs. List of Counts of Castile - I would like to say that I intentionally picked this as it better deals with the split-county period, but I really was just being lazy and swapped out the word monarchs), or even whether such a split was appropriate. Agricolae (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about "monarchs", but both "Castilian counts" and "counts of Castile" are a bit ambiguous. I think I slightly prefer the latter. We could avoid it by merging back into List of Castilian monarchs and renaming that page something like List of rulers of Castile, which does not imply that any all counts or kings who were Castilian will be included, but only all people who "ruled" Castile. Or, we could move the new list to County of Castile and split off pertinent material from Kingdom of Castile to there. Then the counts and the county/ies are discussed on one page and just what the list is of will be clear. What do you think? Srnec (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather have the counts separate, particularly given that the counts are (and should remain) a true list, while the kings are given in tables. There is also the issue of 'rulers' when there is a wide range in the degree to which Rodrigo, Gonzalo Tellez, Fernan Gonzalez (at various times in his life), Sancho Garces, and Garci Sanchez actually ruled. Maybe you are right that County of Castile is the best solution. I'll mull over it some more. (We also need an article on the Beni Gomez, but I haven't gotten around to it.) Agricolae (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Srnec. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 08:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied again. If you want to just watchlist my talk page I'll quit bugging you here. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, it's in the mainspace at South American dreadnought race. Thanks again for the naming suggestion! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll read the whole thing soon. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've nominated it at WP:Milhist's A-class review here if you'd like to leave any comments. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need an opinion/help.[edit]

In your time on Wikipedia, have you had any dealings with self-published books as sources? If so, what exactly are the restrictions(if any) on such sources? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) WP:SPS provides an overview, but basically they have to be written by a recognized expert who works a the relevant field (ie someone known for physics research self-publishes a work on history = probably not reliable). My advice is to avoid them if at all possible, as you will face questions and/or opposition at GAN and certainly FAC if you source your article to an SPS. Peer-reviewed sources are always preferred. :-) Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you very much. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ed. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OttomanNavy[edit]

Thank you for your good work. Takabeg (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. The Ottoman Navy is no specialty of mine, but these articles seemed to me to need some navigational aids to help readers find them. I see that a lot of them are your work. Keep it up! Srnec (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Passaro[edit]

Hello, Srnec. First of all, I'm sorry for my flagrant delay in answering. I'll be faster next time. But what about your message? Well, I truly appreciate your positive comments on my work. It takes me a long time and an exhaustive work. An article about the Spanish war in Sicily would be a hard task, but I'll do my best in the short or long term. Greetings.--Sir Ignel (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011[edit]

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You[edit]

You need to stop changing the Rifs Wars and Franco-Moroccan Wars. Who are you? And where are your sources? You don't even add sources. B-Machine (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Here is one source: [1]. The titles that existed were inventions. I've replaced them with ones you can actually find in the sources. I have proposed a move on the talk page. Srnec (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What new title will you give the article whem it renamed and moved? B-Machine (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's right there in the proposal. Srnec (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kingdom of Africa[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation[edit]

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:MausoleumBohemond.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MausoleumBohemond.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign of the Mallians[edit]

Hey, i noticed that we can't agree on keeping that picture of Machiavelli in there. But I did notice that you were a contributer to military articles in general. Im creating the article in the link above, and it seems you've got some A articles and things. I was wondering if you could check up on my article and tell me what you think and edit it some. This article is the article that I've worked on the hardest so far, its my pride and joy. And I'd love to hear what you have to say about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMooreSmith3 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC) SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

Hi. Are you using IP 216.8.175.142 ? It's risky for you in Wikipedia regardless of your intention, becuase of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Regards. Takabeg (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only log into my account on my main (home) computer. I do not log in on other computers, two of which I use regularly for other purposes. If I edit from there (which will only ever be small edits), then I do not log in and will appear as a mere IP address. The contributions of 216.8.175.142 appear mostly to be me. I do not ever pose as two users, and I do not believe I have violated Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. —Srnec (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that you violated rule on sock pupperty. I want to tell you the presence of risks, because I have witnessed same cases that users were regarded sock puttes without concrete evidence. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I didn't mean to imply that you said I had violated the rule. Srnec (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Quality Management Inspection Medal
I, [Inspector] No. 108, am honored to award you this medal for your unique contributions to the quality management inspection process. Despite our (minor) differences, I appreciate your assistance in improving the "Stable Version" of the Duchy of Perugia entry, the Duchy of the Pentapolis entry, and the Michael Maurex article. Always know that you have this humble inspector's gratitude and respect. Thank you. No. 108 (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal counts[edit]

We seem to be unintentionally edit warring/conflicting in cleaning up the latest attempt at Portuguese nationalism. I will let you take your shot first then come back tomorrow. The important points from my end are that 1) Oneca Lucidez is a myth created to bring about a continuity that didn't exist; 2) Mumadona was countess of Port in her own right, but the exact mechanism of this is not clear; 3) neither Mumadona, Hermengildo, Gonzalo, or Menendo were descendants of/of the dynasty of Vimara Perez (probably best to call them of the Betotez dynasty, Hermengildo's father being Gonzalo Betotez, grandfather Alfonzo, nicknamed Betote. 4) the county of Portugal as a distinct entity went out of existence when Garcia crushed Nuno, and did not reappear as a distinct entity until Alfonso took it from Raymond's Galicia and gave it to Henry to balance them off each other. Agricolae (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have only been trying to clean up links and titles (and spellings). I wasn't sure of enough of the early stuff (your points 1–3) to try and correct it, but know that point 4 is correct. I notice you are spelling the name "Hermengildo", which I believed was a typo. I thought the correct spelling was "Hermenegildo". Am I wrong, or are they variants of the same name? Also, I was tempted to remove all mention of a "Vímara Peres dynasty" from Wikipedia earlier, but I abstained. Wouldn't "dynasty of Vímara Peres" or just "descendants of Vímara Peres" work as well, without any false hint of a customary usage (in English)? Srnec (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never answered one of your questions here. I picked up my spelling from a chart by Emilio Saez Sanchez in his article on these families, which it turns out must just have been a slip of the pen when he drew up this chart. Everywhere else, including elsewhere in his article, it is as you have it and over years and years I never noticed the difference, just seeing the spelling I thought was there. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. (Also, thanks for the Split rename.) Agricolae (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aosta[edit]

What was the period of the existence of the administrative division called "duchy of Aosta" according to your sources?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this book, the duchy had its own traditional institutions as late as 1766. And according to this one, it received its first intendant in 1773. Or try here for a whole section devoted to the duchy of Aosta. According to Jean-Baptiste de Tillier (d. 1744):

The duchy of Aosta has always been a state, forming a single undivided body. The seventy-eight church-towers, or rather the cities, towns, parishes and separate communities which exist in the Valley, are members of this state.

According to this, it had its own taxation system down to 1783. Of course, it was a county before it was a duchy. According to Jack D. Street, The Independence of Savoy and Autonomy of the Valle D'Aosta" The French Review 71 3 (1998): 398, Emmanuel Philibert made French the official language of the Duchy of Aosta in 1561. Srnec (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi, Srnec. When do you have time, could you create your special template for Turkish Navy like Template:OttomanNavy ? Takabeg (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no template expert, but since you asked nicely, I tried. Here it is: Template:TurkishNavy. It seems we have no articles about any major Turkish naval actions since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Or I can't find them. (And that is why navigational templates are useful!) —Srnec (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vaaaaay. Çok merci. Takabeg (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

Hi, Srnec. How are you ? Could you control Tenedos (disambiguation) & Imbros (disambiguation) ? Takabeg (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kheili merci. What do you think of Hafiz (disambiguation) and Hafez (disambiguation) ? Takabeg (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet-Japanese interactions in 1945[edit]

You have been around long enough to know that the accepted behaviour is to discuss such matters on the article talk page before making such edits.
Some of the unacceptable behaviour which you have been displaying is addressed by pages such as WP:NPA and WP:I just don't like it. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. You are NOT entitled to ram it down other people's necks. You are required to present it politely, and with supporting arguements, preferably supported by relevant references and examples.
Pdfpdf (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're too sensitive to discuss with, but I won't be deleting your comments from my talk page. So feel free to try and initiate discussion again any time. Srnec (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any time you want to discuss an issue about an article on the article's talk page, without making personal attacks, I'm happy to participate. But please do not try to blame me for your bad behaviour! Pdfpdf (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I posted reasons for my edits on your talk page, but you singled out one sentence accusing you of violating WP:OWN and have only responded to that (thus focusing on the contributor rather than the content). You then removed the discussion from your talk page. If you won't discuss it there or here, why would I try the article talk page? Srnec (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as you should be well aware, WP policy is that discussion about articles occurs on article talk pages.
I repeat (for the 4th or 5th time, I've lost count): Any time you want to discuss an issue about an article on the article's talk page ...
Pdfpdf (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Srnec. You can see WP:OWN issue here. Takabeg (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I agree with him about Yavuz, but with you about "Ottoman" vs "Turkish". I believe he is a reasonable editor; drop him a line. Srnec (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merci. Could you start discussion ? I've already started several discussion. Maybe someone can confuse me with a claimer not a contributor :) See you. Takabeg (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Sicily under Savoy House[edit]

Hi, why did you cancel my contribution? I think the title you want to use is uncorrect, because only "Savoy" indicates the geographical area and not the royal house: imho House of Savoy or Savoy House is the best choice. --The White Lion (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because (a) the term "Savoy House" is not English usage, (b) the article was already moved without discussion recently to the current title and (c) the term "Savoy" as shorthand for "House of Savoy" is standard (like Habsburg) and not likely to be misinterpreted (I think). Srnec (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, (a) if you think it is more common, we could use "...the House of Savoy" or the declination "...the Savoys"; (c) if you search "Savoy", you find directly the geographical region and not the royal house, it is the opposite in the case of the little village of Habsburg, moreover I have another example: if the dinasty was the House of Bourbon, I think you preferred "... under the Bourbons"; (b) if there is a disputation on the title, the fact it is uncorrect it's a good reason to open a constructive discussion. Imho, only "Savoy" is conceptually incorrect. --The White Lion (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Here, my opinion about the previous title. --The White Lion (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garsenda, Countess of Forcalquier[edit]

Curious about your reversion here. Does the cited source not actually give her these arms? (My copy is packed away, so I can't readily check.) Agricolae (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-checked, and the arms are correct according to Lines of Succession. The same arms are given for John Mowbray in table 4.
However, I've just noticed that in Lines of Succession, Garsenda's son is called Raymond Berengar V, but he is stated in Wikipedia as Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Provence, in this circumstance, either Lines of Succession or Wikipedia is wrong (V or IV).
Stephen2nd (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long-standing debate. Genealogists have tended to call him RB V because he is great-grandson of RB IV, not noticing but that was IV of Barcelona, not of Provence. He was the 4th Raymond to have been count of Provence, and so historians have tended to call him Raimond Berenguer IV of Provence. However, of late some sources have taken to numbering Raimond Berenger IV of Barcelona, who was regent but not count of Provence, among the other numbered RBs of Provence. Such a numbering would indeed then make the final count Ramon Berenger V, but to me is smacks of begging the question - deciding who is to be numbered based on wanting the last to be Ramon Berenger V, rather than using established criteria, whatever the outcome. (Something similar is done with the renumbering of the Counts of Toulouse, taking the old Raymond III Pons and calling him just Raymond Pons in order not to number him, and thereby allow the old Raymond IV to still be Raymond IV, in spite of the recent discovery of at least one intervening Raymond.) Agricolae (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And all I had was: "The numeral varies depending on how you count. It's the same guy." ... Srnec (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The numeral varies depending on how you count. It's the same guy.
My edit summary says "improper citation" because "Lines of Succession. table 45. Kings of Aragon and Castile." is just not a meaningful citation unless you already know what is being referered to. There is no author, no publisher, no date, no italics, no page number. But that is not the only reason I reverted, I also removed it because (a) the image claims to be the arms of La Marne, which is not inconsistent—two things could have identical arms—but is probably confusing to the reader and suggests that he is being misinformed by Wikipedia, and (b) the caption made her father's name Raymond, in contradiction with the text (although off-hand I don't know what is right, the French Wiki gives Rénier). I would have no problem with it being re-added with a proper citation format, but I do think using an image that appears to be of something else is not ideal. Perhaps that can be fixed easily? Srnec (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. The work is: Louda, Jiri; Michael Maclagan (1981). Lines of Succession. London: Orbis Publishing. ISBN 0 85613 276 4. (republished in America as Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe, and more recently with the combined Lines of Succession: Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe). As to the arms, that is just the image file name, right? For her father, I think this is a cumulative effect of misreadings. I have always known him as Rainou which is likely an Occitan form. I note that Medieval Lands appears to misread this as Rainon, which in turn could lead to a misreading Ramon, and hence Raymond. I suspect that Renier is an attempt to render Rainou into std French. Agricolae (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. One book on the trobairitz calls him "Raines de Claustral", which appears Occitan as well. I would prefer we use Rainou, if he ever makes it to an article of his own.
It's not just the file name, but the file description as well. If I click on it to find out more information I will find that I am actually viewing the arms of La Marne. I think this could be confusing, even if the article itself does not mislead. I don't know if that's a good reason to keep the image off the page. Srnec (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation

Ref: Louda, Jiri; Michael Maclagan (1981). Lines of Succession. London: Orbis Publishing. ISBN 0 85613 276 4.

RB IV or RB V

According to this Ref, Raymond Berengar IV Count of Provence 1167 (d.1181), was the 2nd son of Raymond Berengar IV Count of Barcelona, RB IV being the brother of his 1st born son; Alphonso II, King of Aragon. The 2nd son of Alphonse II King of Aragon, was Alphonso II Count of Provence. His son is stated as being Raymond Berengar V (d.1245). His 2nd daughter was Eleanor the wife of Henry III of England. (See 5)

Spelling of the name variations

There are variations of the name, depending on which language, book, era &c being read. However, in reference to the use of the depicted arms, is it possible that the root of the name (Berengar &/or Berenguer), may be "a form of secondary marriage called baragania" [LoS p 91]?

Arms

The (white lion on a red shield) as the arms of Garsenda, are the same arms as Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester, and Mowbray. A version of these arms re-appear on the arms of James I, Count of La Marche, a Garsenda descendant. Moreover, the Garsenda arms also represent the Mowbray descendants of; the Scottish Earl of March, and as a relative of the Earl of Ross.

  1. The arms of Garsenda (Gules, a lion rampant argent) [LoS table 45] are the same arms as Mowbray [LoS table 4].
  2. The arms of Alphonso II (K. Aragon & C. Provence) are the same arms of Northumberland.
  3. Roger de Albini esposed Amicia de Mowbray, sister of Robert de Mowbray, Earl of Northumberland, (former kingdom of Northumbria); Their 2nd son was Nigel de Albini, m.1118, Gundred de Gournay, only child of Gerard de Gornay, by Edith, daughter of William de Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey, by Gundred daughter of William the Conqueror. Their eldest son Roger by Special command of King Henry I, assumed the surname and arms of the Mowbray family.
  4. William d'Aubigny, 3rd Earl of Arundel. Married Mabel of Chester daughter of Hugh de Kevelioc, 5th Earl of Chester, and Bertrade de Montfort. They were the parents of Avice de Aubigny (1196-1214), the wife of William Mowbray.
  5. Hugh de Kevelioc, (1147 – 1181) was the son of Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester and Maud of Gloucester, daughter of Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester (the illegitimate son of Henry I of England, making her Henry's granddaughter).
  6. The arms of Ranulf de Gernon Earl of Chester were: gules, a lion rampant argent
  7. Roger Mowbray, gules, a lion rampant argent (1295)
  8. Sir John Mowbray, gules, a lion rampant argent (1308)
  9. Thomas Mowbray, England with a label 3 argent, charged with 3 eagles displayed of the 1st, quarterly with, gules a lion rampant argent
  10. Thomas de Mowbray Duke of Norfolk KG EM, England with a label of 5 points argent quarterly with gules a lion rampant argent (1398)
Conclusion

Garsenda's arms via Eleanor, descended to Henry III of England. These same arms were given to Roger Mowbray by Henry I of England (See 3). Mowbray was one of the Lords of the March, and ancestor of the Scottish Earldoms, using the same arms. Therefore, Garsenda is related to Mowbray, (possibly by secondary marriage called baragania). The name Mowbray is stated to originate from Montbray in Normandy, which is virtually next door to La Marne in Normandy.
I would be most pleased, in reference to your knowledge of Berengar &/or Garsenda families, if you could offer any research, or comments, on their associations with Northumbria &/or the Mowbray families.
Stephen2nd (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new info-box (see here), will insert if no objections.Stephen2nd (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) Numbering: Dulce, heiress of Provence, married RB III of Barcelona, who ruled (jure uxoris by modern standards) Provence as RB I. He passed Provence to his younger son, Berenger Ramon, followed by his son RB (held to be RB II). His sole child, Dulce died in 1072, aged less than 10. Provence then reverted to the head of the family, Alfonso II of Aragon, who granted it to his younger brother Peter, who on succeeding took the name RB (III). On his death, it passed to his younger brother Sancho, and on Sancho's death, back to Alfonso II, who then held it as Alfonso I. He gave it to his younger son Alfonso (II of Provence) and from him it went to son RB IV. That is the typical numbering followed by historians. What you will notice is that in all this, Ramon Berenger IV of Barcelona never held Provence by this accounting. I have seen two mutually exclusive arguments for numbering RB IV of Barcelona as one of the RBs of Provence. Argument 1 is that he served as regent for his nephew (RB II by the former count), making him RB II and his nephew RB III rather than II, and on down the line. Argument 2 is that RB IV of Barcelona transiently held Provence after his father's death before it went to his brother BR. I have not seen any evidence of this.
2) Name: you are being two ingenious for your own good here. The name was a given name that then became a patronym, that then became part of a dual name. Ramon Borrell (Ramon, son of count Borrell) named his eldest son Berenger, who then was known as Berenger Ramon (I). His son was Ramon Berenger (I). In the next generation, things started to change. Ramon Berenger I had (apparently, although the refernces are later than one would like) twins, one named Berenger Ramon (II), still using the patronym form, but the other was then named the converse, Ramon Berenger (II), and a younger son was named Pere Berenger, son now they are no longer using it as a patronymic, but rather as a distinctive second name. From then on, Ramon Berenger is used as an indivisible two-part name, as is Berenger Ramon. It has nothing to do with baranagia. The different forms I sometimes use reflect the usages in Castilian vs French vs Catalan (as with Raymond vs Ramon vs Raimond represent the same name).
3) Arms: your derivation of the arms is misplaced. In #3, Gundred, wife of William de Warenne was not daughter of William the C. This derives from centuries-later forgery in a monastery cartulary. See her page. Henry I of England is only known to have granted arms to his son in law, and even there, it was more a badge - mantle, slippers and a shield with lions (that is all we know, no colors or number of lions - it may have just been lions, generically). There is no evidence he granted arms to the Mowbrays, and no evidence that the Mowbrays used arms that long ago. Most importantly, there is no association of the Lords of Sabran and Counts of Forcalquier with anything Norman or English. These systems did not arise continent-wide with uniform rules. It is not uncommon for a town in one place to have the same arms as a family from another, or two completely unrelated families to have ended up with the same arms. Likewise, weird things have happened - the 'just so story' that Henry II added one lion for Aquitaine to 2 lions for Normandy led to the English 3 lion coat (again, this is not what happened) led to the 2 lion coat to be adopted to represent Normandy, long after the fact. Who knows how Le Marne got theirs, but it is likely coincidence - after all, a one-lion coat was the most popular in heraldry, and there are only so many possible color combinations. Agricolae (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Morella[edit]

Were you going to put a battle template in this article? I have had to restore the sentences concerning El Cid's employment for Zaragoza and noticed the link to the battle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:LeonineWalls.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LeonineWalls.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1918–1920 incidents in Split[edit]

You participated in a previous discussion regarding the name of the page 1918–1920 incidents in Split. A proposal has been initiated to rename the page. You can participate in the discussion at Talk:1918–1920 incidents in Split. Agricolae (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Srnec! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Carraresi[edit]

Category:Carraresi, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move for "Darius the Great"[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County of Portugal[edit]

Hi. About your revert in county of Portugal. I moved the content to that article after trying to expand the original article History of Portugal (711–1139) that was mostly empty except for the lead section. It seemed to me that that article was unecessarily duplicating Al-Garb Al-Andalus and County of Portugal, both will very little content too. So I moved the respective content the those articles. I also plan on expanding them. I hope that clarifies things. Happy editing,--Cattus talk 21:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Requested move List of colonial heads of Egypt[edit]

Srnec, I relisted the current discussion today, but if you are going to pursue the merge suggestions instead of title changes, please withdrawn the requested move nomination and I'll close it. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry III - good faith edit[edit]

I performed a good faith edit that improved and you reverted without comment. I consider that vandalism. If their is a factual error in the ib go ahead and correct it otherwise ... --Hutcher (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that your edit improved the article. You were bold in adding an infobox to an article that had never had one for any substantial period of time, then I reverted you. The next step is discussion, as you began here, not reverting me right back. (As an aside, you can consider my act vandalism if you like, but I will consider the addition of an infobox "because his daddy's got one" an act of vandalism instead.) Srnec (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Jehan Vaillant, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rondeau and Tuning (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) 10:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Johannes Symonis Hasprois, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Benedict XIII and Rozoy (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) 11:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Operation Nordlicht (1944–1945), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lapland Province (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) 11:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox former country[edit]

Hello, could you please tell me the requirements for a nation to qualify for an "Infobox former country"? Xuxalliope (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The basic requirement is simply that the fields of the infobox should match the categories in which we speak of the country. "Middle Francia" is just a name of convenience for a collection of territories united under the rule of one man for a short period. It did not have an official language or capital, nobody knows its population, and its government was basically its king. That's it. There has been debate in the past about merging that article into Lotharingia but there was no consensus. Lotharingia could qualify in a way, but the article itself covers the development of the region known as Lotharingia form its formation well past the date when it ceased to be a single kingdom and had become a regnum/duchy within either France or Germany, and finally a divided region (two duchies, intermittently united). In that past, more than one infobox has been put on it, but that is sloppy and confusing. Srnec (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand there is a debate over this. I have decided to join the Former Countries WikiProject, and help them instead. Thank you for correcting my work.Xuxalliope (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Pedro Manrique's seal, obverse.PNG[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Pedro Manrique's seal, obverse.PNG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pedro Manrique's seal, obverse.PNG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pedro Manrique's seal, obverse.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Constitutio de feudis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain (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) 10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Kingdom of Sardinia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bourbon and Venetia (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) 10:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramiro Garcés, Lord of Calahorra[edit]

In your original creation of this page (and these details remain unchanged) you show Ramiro's death in 1083 at Rueda, but also show him witnessing a charter in 1085. One of these dates would seem to be in error. Agricolae (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the 1085 one almost certainly. I believe that is lifted from the Medieval Lands website, where the square brackets indicate the charter's date has been amended. Reilly (here) cites the same charter, I believe, but from a different source. It is the same day (27 May) but he says that the year in the charter itself is 1063 and Moret has re-dated it to 1083. The date of Ramiro's death is, so far as I know, uncontroversial. Srnec (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been discussing this off-Wiki. The 1085 dating is as follows: the original charter date is impossible, given that it is witnessed by King Alfonso and Queen Constance. Likewise, a Bishop in the witness list puts it 1084 or later, while the dating clause, with weekday and date, puts it in 1085. Yet both the Historia Roderici and the Chronica Naierensis give Ramiro's death at Rueda, which some chronicles place in 1084, but probably 1083 is correct. It looks like the charter may either be corrupt/bogus, or has had witnesses added after the fact as a form of confirmation, as had been done with some earlier Leonese royal charters, thus distorting the redating analysis. Agricolae (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China article[edit]

Since you have previously discussed about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.229 (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aimaq[edit]

I would just move it, it's a fairly clear case in WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are wrong[edit]

No, I'm not. However, I'm talking about a thing that is different to what you seem to think you are talking about.
Anyway, in any and all relevant cases, the changes made by User:Kirrages address the situation correctly. (Thanks Kirrages.) --Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You wrote: "No, it [Malaya] didn't then [include Singapore], and doesn't now. On the other hand, Malaysia includes Singapore." That's all wrong. Malaysia does not include Singapore, although it did between 1963 and 1965. "Malaya" in both its geographical sense and its former British administrative sense definitely included Singapore. Srnec (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 29[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Odo the Good Marquis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marino Sanudo (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) 11:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monti Prama's Giants[edit]

Hi, Srnec, do you Know how can I do - on en.Wiki - to suggest translation of the Italian voice on Giganti di monte Prama? [2] I'd like to do it, but my English is not enough good, I'd like that Archeology Project get a glance on it. Do you Know somebody there? Thanks for an advise.--Shardan (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to create a stub at Giants of Monti Prama based on the Italian article's lead paragraph and then tag it with {{Expand Italian|Giganti di monte Prama}}. Then post notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology. —Srnec (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Srnec, I really appreciated your suggestion. Giants of Monte Prama is now on and I'll post notice at WikiProject Italy and WikiProject Archaeology. Ciao, --Shardan (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for First Transjordan attack on Amman[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of First Transjordan attack on Amman. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Neotarf (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arias Pérez[edit]

Dear Srnec: You've got an answer about the church of Arcos da Condesa in Talk:Arias Pérez. Greetings from Galicia! --Estevoaei (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion[edit]

Hello, Srnec. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Alfonso_X_of_Castile#Ancestry_box, when there is a dispute between two editors it is good to ask for a third opinion WP:3O or ask at a relevant wikiproject such as some of the wikiprojects listed at the top of the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I == Are you ready for the merger? ==

Hi Srnec,

Nice to see you're keeping up the good work! Are you ready for merging East Francia into the Kingdom of Germany ? It looks like we now can improve the Kingdom of Germany article.

Cheers, Mootros (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to see that done, but the article on East Francia should remain as is until (a) the merger is done and (b) all the information meregd to Kingdom of Germany has been sourced. Srnec (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I assume the best way is to get the article ready in a sandbox and than proceed with the actual merger. I will go a head in a few days and would like to have you're proofread it, if that's OK. Mootros (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we need a sandbox. I would think we could just edit Kingdom of Germany until East Francia is completely redundant, but then I do start to wonder if we shouldn't keep the latter as a sub-article for the early period of German kingdom. Feel free to get started on whatever you like, but nothing should be added to any article that is not reliably sourced. The biggest problem right now is the absence of well-sourced sections at any article on certain time periods. Srnec (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. That's no problem. Mootros (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sick?[edit]

Sincerely, your behaviour changing maps is a bit sick, don't you agree? Get a psychologist....you need one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.140.97 (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

House of Burgundy (Spain)[edit]

I am going to create a template for the House of Burgundy (Spain) like Template:House of Estridsen. Are you going to fight me and remove it in every article where I place it? If you are I am not going to waste my time creating it.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how a template like that Estridsen one is of any help to the reader. It is far too long and includes way too much information about minor individuals. Is a link to a dynastic article not enough? While we're on this topic, shouldn't an article on the later Burgundian dynasties be separated from Anscarids by now? Nobody (in their right mind) would call a Spanish monarch of the 14th century an Anscarid.
I won't promise to fight you, but I won't promise to stand back either. If you put a long template like that on a shorter article that is on my watchlist, I probably would remove it. Frankly, I think it would be a waste of your time to create such a template whether I fight it or not. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Campeche[edit]

You reverted my revert in the article. Good call! My hat off to you. Keep up the good work. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking it well! Srnec (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemange[edit]

You reverted my edits to the entry for Charlemagne. My reason for making the edits was to create a common feel for the introduction section. Prior to my edit (in my opinion) the introduction was very disjointed and did not flow together well. It was my intention to rewrite the introduction to give a unified voice so that the section flowed together as a single narrative. I believe the introduction I put forward helped in this regard. I presume you believed it not? Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response. All the best - Rougher07 (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were several factors. The image in the infobox is of a contemporary coin, a better one than a portrait painted 700 years later that you replaced it with. You also expanded the infobox, but I think the shorter the better in this case, especially since there is a second infobox. It is disputable that he is the founder of the Carolingian Empire, since the dynasty and the areas it ruled were put together before his time. All he did was get an imperial title. I think it more valuable to distinguish his rule over the Franks (beginning 768) from his imperial coronation (in 800). The point about Empress Irene is debatable.
I agree that the lede could use some work. I have done some re-wording. If you don't touch the infobox, I will not wholesale revert you again; but I had no way of reverting just the infobox because the edits to the lede and infobox were lumped as one. Srnec (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi Srnec. Are you by any chance interested in working on a Spanish MOS? See Talk:Spanish orthography/Talk:Spanish naming customs. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox removals[edit]

Hi,

I've been contacted by an infrequent editor whose contributions have been repeatedly reverted by you on the grounds that you apparently disagree with "infobox creep" (your words, from your talk archives, although we're talking about a different user here). If you remove work added to an article in good faith, then I would strongly advise you to make a case for said removal either with the editor whose contributions you are removing or on the article talk page. Doing so with no explanation simply dissuades people from working on articles, especially as adding infoboxes to article that don't have them (which is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, with broad consensus) is a common task for new editors looking to find easy ways to start working on articles. If I'm missing something in this discussion then please let me know. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, we disagree about infoboxes. "[A]dding infoboxes to article [sic] that don't have them" is not "a perfectly acceptable thing to do, with broad consensus", since there is no consensus for infoboxes on many types of articles, only some. If you tell me specifically what article(s) or what user you are referring to I can explain my reversion in that particular case. Srnec (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for individual post-hoc justifications. All I'm asking is that if in future you choose to remove an infobox from an article that you present your rationale for doing so there and then, or even better propose the removal on the talk page prior to it happening. Summary removal of templates from articles is no different from summary removal of any other information: while ultimately we permit it at editorial discretion, it can have a negative effect on collaboration, and is therefore best discussed unless there is a firm rationale for it (over and above individual preference). Take care. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Peter/Pedro III[edit]

  • Hi, this is a mass-produced message which means it may duplicate a message already on your Talk:page. As a result of the lack of reference to specific sources or guidelines such as WP:SOVEREIGN, User:Qwyrxian closed the RM at Talk:Peter III of Portugal but said a new RM could be started if new evidence was presented. This I have done after discussion with Qwyrxian and User:Lecen. This means that your previous support or oppose will not be counted, and must be resubmitted. However please note Qwyrxian's request that support/oppose be made with reference to specific arguments guidelines or sources, and (quote) especially recommend that people don't do the "Support per person X and Y", as such comments are close to useless, (unquote). Thanks for your time. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Ratweek (Balkans), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fitzroy Maclean (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) 12:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aimery IV of Narbonne for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aimery IV of Narbonne is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimery IV of Narbonne until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jtrainor (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somaliland campaign[edit]

Months ago, you noted the Somaliland campaign (1920) was not the fifth anything. However, this has been readded, and seems corroborated from a quick glace at related pages. Is there something missing from the current article(s)? They all could use some expansion. Regards, CMD (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigning in Somaliland was more or less ongoing. I don't think it is possible to number the campaigns in a way that is consistent with reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geography section of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia[edit]

G'day Srnec, I've been using the new source you produced to add a geographical section to the article but am having some discussions about the content regarding eastern Syrmia and the Sandzak. Given you introduced the source, you might like to provide your view in the discussion here [3]? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stellinga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freemen (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) 11:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

about Monte Prama[edit]

Hi Srnec, could you give a glance at Giants of Monte Prama. On the Italian version, notes are relates to bibliography with a special link called op.cit. I don't find it on en.Wiki. Do you Know were can I find it? Thanks--Shardan (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it exists here. It shouldn't be necessary. As long as the author and the date are present in the footnote that should be enought to indicate which work is meant. Srnec (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It's the first time I try to create a voice on en.Wiki. Can you please give me some advises to follow en.Wiki standards? What about notes and images? and about wikification? Thanks again.--Shardan (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You look to be doing pretty well (maybe the English could use work, but I only glanced over the page). Generally, images should face into the page and you should never squeeze text between a left image and a right one. We don't use Ibid., Op. cit. and the like here (although they apparently do on the Italian Wiki). Your wikification looks correct from what I can see. I don't know why the article title is italicised, but it needn't be. Maybe it's because it's under construction. Drop me a line when you consider your work substantially completed. Srnec (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Srnec, I've done a bit of work [4], but I have not yet finished. What do you think? Give me some advice. Thanks --Shardan (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fulk of Guînes[edit]

The article Fulk of Guînes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references and no indication of notability

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robkirwan (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source to the page, Alan Murray's The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Dynastic History, 1099-1125, but I don't have access to the book at the moment. There should be more info on the couple of pages there. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll see if I can expand that article a little. Srnec (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much[edit]

The World War Barnstar

Hi, I am very grateful to you for your positive input to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article and the related template. I can't tell you how much it means to me to see positive work by others in this backwater of WWI. Rskp (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your input needed[edit]

I made a topic ban proposal, but it's getting very little input from the community. Apparently, people are not commenting because they are not familiar with the topic. Can you leave a comment there? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German Monarchy 1918[edit]

Hi Srnec, the consensus on the name change under talk title "Improperly placed template tag", was that the article should be re-named "German Monarchy", with the existing "German Monarchy re-direct" to "German Empire" removed. Can you remove the title of "List of German monarchs to 1918", change the title to "German Monarchy" and remove the redirect. Ta Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "German Monarchy" is a good name for a list of the monarchs in Germany in 1918. It seems to me that the title I chose is the best one. The page is a detailed look at all the monarchs in Germany at the time its monarchy ended. Srnec (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abbo Cernuus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dactyl (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) 12:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec![edit]

Hey Srnec, I'm working on adding references to the Norman conquest of southern Italy article since there weren't very many so I started working on it in my userspace. With me going over a few sources I changed some of the content after reading them (and citing what I found in them). I just wanted to get your eyes on it in my userspace before I put it "live" incase we want to talk about some of the changes and such. Anywho, I look forward to any feedback/response you might have. If you wouldn't mind using the userspace talk page for your response/feedback that would be appreciated since I'll ask for a few others opinions as well. It would be nice to get this sucker up to GA someday. Thanks again, cheers, — - dain- talk    01:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help. I'm going to start by creating a bibliography for the article and seeing what sources I can get my hands on easily. (As an aside, do you read French or Italian? There are very good sources in those languages.) Srnec (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds awesome! Some folks brought up a good point in just editting the live version of the article instead of working on it in my userspace so that's the route I'll take there. I wish I read Italian or French, that would be incredibly useful for this. I look forward to working with you Srnec. Cheers, — - dain- talk    02:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wolfger von Erla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enns (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) 12:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alvito Nunes[edit]

Hello Smerc, I see that you've been reverted in the aforementioned article with the argument that this is not Spanish wikipedia. It isn't pt.wiki either. I think the different variations of the name should be mentioned, including the equivalent in Spanish, as you had done. I'm pasting below one charter. I'm travelling now and don't have all my sources with me, but I'm sure we will find many other spelling variations. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

936, 12 Sept. (Celanova, doc. 53, pp 124-125): witnesses in a donation made by Froila & Sarracina to Celanova: Ylduntia, sobrinis mei; Ilduara, filii mei; Sarracina (...) Aloytus Nunniz (...)Aloytus Lucidiz; Ranimirus princeps, Hordonius prolis domni Adefonsi regis.

Disambiguation link notification for February 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlantic pockets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest (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) 11:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list of the kings od Sardinia[edit]

Sorry Sir, I couldn'understand why you delete my entire article. What's wrong in it? Actually It could better made, of course, but, are you a specialist of sardinian history? Because I am !! Or do you have different opinions about it? We can't talk, but those words, "good faith" have something like offensive to me. I want to know which are the reason of those quite outrageous words! --Mauro Podda 07:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC) p.s. I'm not english mother language but, as you know, english is the international communication modern language, so, please, if you could, help me to organize articles and understand well the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roburq (talk • contribs) 06:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is not well-formatted enough, or well-worded enough, to remain in the mainspace. I retained one of your sentences that had two sources, and I your altered headings (House of ...). The bulk of your text will either need (a) more citations or (b) significant re-structuring and re-wording to be comprehensible to most English readers. I will work on it when I have time, but as is perhaps you should suggest changes to the article Kingdom of Sardinia on the talk page there. Make sure you have sources to present when you do. If you need help with translation into acceptable English, I can try to help you. Srnec (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, well, about my english you are right, altough I think it was not so uncomprehensible. Anyway, I'm happy if you can help me to write in a good english. Thank you. Where do you think the text need more citations? I thought they were too many !!! :-)). But, please remeber some very important things: Umberto I and Vittorio Emanuele IIi were kings of Italy, never king of Sardinia. I altered headings because we the world "domination" it's not accepted in modern storiografy, as they were kings of Sardinia, a sparate state in a conferation of states whose ancient was the kingdom of Aragon. It's a common mistake, but Sardinia had his own parliamentt, his own hig court and his own governament in Cagliari. One last thing in which I surely need your help: how can I work the article that you have (temporaly I hope) cancelled? Where can I find it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roburq (talk • contribs) 07:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Sardinia[edit]

Hello Srnec I'd like to insert a Preface or Introduction to the subject "kingdom of Sardinia". As you can imagine, I'm not english mother-language so my english needs to be retified. May I ask you to verify my piece? Also I'm a beginner in wikipedia so I have serious difficulties to well arrange my articles. Furthermore I'd like to insert an ancient image of the kingdom flag from a XVIth century book. The file is of my own. I bought a microfilm of the book from the National Austrian Library and converted it to a computer file.

This is the image:

Stemma del Regno di Sardegna metà del XVI secolo

, it's on Commons.

This is the title of the book: H. Cock-J. Doetichum-L. Doetichum, “La magnifique et somptueuse pompe funebre faite aus obseques et funerailles du tres grande et tres victorieus empereur Charles cinquieme”, Plantin, Anvers, 1559 I took the liberty of adding a more substantial bibliography of the subject. This is my piece: thank you for your kindness

I still plan to get to this, but I am waiting until I have a good chunk of free time on my hands. Srnec (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PREFACE[edit]

Est jus sardorum pariter regnum populorum[1]

King of Sardinia, Rex Sardiniae, were called the kings that succeeded to the throne of the Kingdom of Sardinia (Regnum Sardiniae et Corsicae until 1460), realm created by Pope Boniface VIII April 4th, 1297 in implementation of the Treaty of Anagni of June 24th, 1295. With the coronation of the King of Aragon James II as king of Sardinia the Pope intended to put an end to the conflict created between the Angevins and Aragonese for control of the Kingdom of Sicily and known as the War of the Vespers. But, actually, there were other reasons beside this papal decision: it was the final successful result of the long fight against the "ghibellina" (pro-imperial) city of Pisa and the Holy Roman Empire itself. Furthermore, now, Sardinia would be under the control of the very Catholic Kings of Aragon, and the last result of reaprochment of the island to Rome. Sardinian church had never been under the control of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, it was an autonomous province loyal to Rome but was very influenced by Byzantin liturgy and culture. After the Great Schism Rome made any effort to re-latinize sardinian church, politics and society, and finally unify again the island under only one catholic ruler, as it was for all southern Italy, were byzantines were pushed away by catholic Normans. Ever the title of Judices was a byzantin reminder of greek church and state, in times of harsh relations between east and west Church (Massacre of the Latins, 1182 Siege of Constantinople(1204) Recapture_of_Constantinople,1261) Before the Kingdom of Sardinia et Corsica so, the Archons (ἄρχοντες) or in latin Judices[2][3], that reigned in the island from the IXth or Xth century until the beginning of XI, can be considered as real Kings of all Sardinia (Κύριε βοήθε ιοῦ δού λού σου Tουρκοτουρίου ἅρχωντοσ Σαρδινίας καί τής δού ληςσου Γετιτ[4])[5][6], even though nominal vassals of the Byzantine emperors, but the rulers in fact of the island. Of this sovereigns we have only received two names: Turcoturiu and Salusiu (Tουρκοτουριου βασιλικου προτοσπαθαριου[7]και Σαλουσιου των ευγενεστατων άρχωντων)[8][9], rulers probably in the tenth century. The Archons wrote still in greek and one of the first document of the Judex of Cagliari was written in latin sardinian language but in greek alphabet.

The title of King of Sardinia was then granted by the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire to Barisone II of Arborea[10] and Enzio of Sardinia. The first could not aim to reunify the island under his rule, despite years of wars against the other Sardinian judices and finally gave it up in a peace treaty with them in 1172[11]. The second he did not have the opportunity. Invested with the title from his father, the Emperor Frederick II in 1239, was soon recalled by the parent and appointed Imperial Vicar for Italy. He ended his days, without direct recognized heirs , after a detention of 23 years in a prison in Bologna in 1272.

In 238 B.C. Sardinia became, with Corsica, a province of the Roman Empire. The Romans ruled the island until the middle of the Vth century, when it was occupied by the Vandals, settled in north Africa. But in 534 A.D. it was reconquered by the Romans, but now, they were from the East Roman Empire, from Byzantium. It remains a byzantin province until the arab conquest of Sicily, in the IXth century. Since then, communications with Constantinople became very difficult, so the powerful or one of the powerful families of the island were forced to take the power. Sardinia had been alone against arab attempts to sack and conquer the island but it still recognized itself in the imperial ideology of byzantium and so was the political organization of the state. The state was not a personal property of the ruler and of his family, as in western Europe, but was a separate institution, as it was during the roman and byzantine empire, a .... monarchical republic. At the beginning of th XIth century, muslims from Spain made a powerful attempt to conquer Sardinia[12], but they were was defeated by the fleets of Pisa and Genua[13], that were vassals of the holy Roman Empire. The realm was devided into four little kingdoms, the Judicati perfectly organized as the previous, but now under the influence of the Pope and that of Holy Roman Empire and its Frakish-Roman political ideology. That was the cause of the long war between the Judices who thought they were Kings and Kings that only believed to fight against some rebellious nobles. Byzantin political doctrine permanently dead with the last Judicatus, in 1420, when the new Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica defeated it in a cruent battle in Sanluri the Arborea Judicatus and the sovereing rights were sold by the last Judex. It was only a few decades before the conquest of Constantinople by the Muslim Turks, and the discover of the new world. We can consider that, excluding the Republic of Venice, Sardinia was the last and direct institutional and ideological country of roman ancestry in western Europe until 1410.

Some Norman stuff[edit]

Heya Srnec, I was wondering if you know of any Norman pages regarding the Norman cavalry that I'm reading so much about, or the Norman military, equipment, tactics and such. There wasn't anything on them on the Knights page or anything. I thought it was strange how the Anglo-Saxons have articles for Huscarls, Fyrd and Anglo-Saxon warfare. I saw that on the vikings page there is a "Weapons and warfare" section too. Anywho, I was thinking about doing something similar for the Normans and I was just curious what you thought about it. Maybe I just haven't found some articles or something too though. Cheers! — -dainomite   23:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have an Osprey book about the Normans. There is also a very interesting article "On the Origins of William the Conqueror's Horse Transports" by Bernard Bachrach in Technology and Culture, 26, 3 (1985): 505–31, which you can read at JSTOR if you have access (or your library does). There is also a very nice web site that has some information (including photographs of artifacts): http://www.mondes-normands.caen.fr/angleterre/index.htm. That's a start. (I still plan to go to work on the Italian conquest article soon.) —Srnec (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny you mention the Osprey book, I was reading my Galloglass Osprey book last night and on the inside of the back page it mentioned related books and the first one was "Norman Knights" haha. Looks like I will have to order that off amazon. I have 10 or so books on the Normans but to go back through them and find bits and pieces to write an article seems like such a huge and tedious project. I might need to request JSTOR access.... Holy smokes that website is amazing, thanks for sharing it. Yeah I mean to get back to the Italian conquest article but again, back to the "huge and tedious project" thing. That and some extra free time to devote to it would always help. — -dainomite   01:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ermengol III, Count of Urgell[edit]

Hello Smerc, on Ermengol III and IV, in a document dated 1069-71 which can be viewed at [5], p. 211, doc. 51, Ermengol IV swears loyalty to count Guillem Ramón I of Cerdaña, husband of his sister Isabel, declaring that he is the son of Adelaida, not Clemencia "Ego, Ermengaudus comes Urgelli, filius qui sum comitisse Adalaidis..." promising that should he die without heirs, the county would go to his sister Elisabet. Since this is a primary rather than a secondary source, I don't know if it can be used. Fundación Noguera has an excellent website where they have many cartularies and documents from Catalonia from the Middle Ages. The url for the site is [6] and the cartularies can be found at [7]. In the cartulary of San Pedro de Ager, doc 10, you can also find confirmation on Ermengol II's wife Belasquita, que uocant Constancia Regards,--Maragm (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability notification[edit]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Counts of Tusculum, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Counts of Tusculum" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 23:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corias[edit]

Please explain why you want to remove Abbey from the title of the monastery. You give no reason for reverting my move to give the full title. Daniel the Monk (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unnecessary. That's it. You should put it through an RM if you think most people will agree with you. Srnec (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what you think, editing here has to be explained and justified. You have yet to give a single reason for the reverts. I think the onus is on you to justify them. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what you think, editing here is based on consensus. I did explain my reverts, both of them. Watch me do it again. As regards the move: the word abbey is, as I said, unnecessary. That's all there is to it. It is not needed, since there is only one San Juan Bautista de Corias and it is an abbey. As regards "himself": it's bad grammar. It is reflexive, but the sentence is not. Arias did not do anything to himself, rather the king did something to him. The sentence—"After 19 years as abbot, Arias was named Bishop of Oviedo by King Alfonso VI of León and Castile"—makes perfect sense without "himself" added. There is no highlighting to be done, since the sentence can only mean one thing: that Arias was named bishop by the king. I have reverted you again on both counts and remind you again that you should open a move request on the talk page. Srnec (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have not given a single reason any of these times for your move until now. While you might be correct about the word being unnecessary when looked at by itself, you are ignoring my reasoning that it relates to the sentence immediately preceding it. You are also not responding to the reasons I've given for the title move. Thus far all you are saying is that you think that they are unnecessary. Where is the consensus in that?
By the way, you have now reverted my editing 3 times. I believe that is a major violation of the guidelines here. Daniel the Monk (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at San Juan Bautista de Corias[edit]

Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:Srnec reported by User:Daniel the Monk (Result: Warnings, protection), which contains a warning for you. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you when you have a two-person disagreement and it appears that consensus can't be reached. Continued warring is harmful to the encyclopedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Former_monarchies_Italian_peninsula[edit]

Hi Srnec, I noticed you removed some "questionable monarchies" from this template. Of course, that isn't a problem, but don't you think almost all of the remaining "monarchies" are questionable as well? Most of them are either de jure or de facto dependencies of the Kingdom of Lombardy, the Holy Roman Empire, the Papal States, the Kingdom of Naples/Sicily, the Napoleonic Empire, or the Austrian Empire.

Besides, the Papal States was much less a monarchy than the "republic" of Venice, which isn't included.

If all questionable monarchies were to be removed, I think only a few were to remain (Italy, Rome, Sicily) and a few more have to be included (HRE, Austria, France).

I think it would be better to keep all of the "questionable monarchies" and perhaps add some subdivisions (e.g. Byzantine Empire: Amalfi, Apulia, Ravenna, etc. Lombards: Benevento, Spoleto, etc. etc.).

What do you think? Michael! (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this template is really helpful anyway. "Former monarchies of the Italian Peninsula, Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily" seems pretty broad and arbitrary to me. A few more limited boxes—like "Former states of Imperial Italy" and "Lombard and Norman principalities of southern Italy (8th–11th centuries)"—would be more useful and logical. Srnec (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick reply. I think such a navigation box is helpful primarily for navigation purposes: you can see at just one glance which articles on former Italian monarchies Wikipedia already has and navigate between them with just a few clicks.
It'll be a good idea to introduce more subdivisions, but it might also be a good idea to change this box to "former states of Italy", since "monarchy" and "principality" are both arbitrary terms. There's little difference between a republican signoria and a city state principality like Piombino.
Do you mind if I re-include the "questionable monarchies" you've removed? Michael! (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: "Imperial Italy" is a really problematic description, since it could mean many states between Caesar and WWI.
But if it's navigation between different articles in a broad category, we have categories for that. Navigational boxes should only be used when a set of articles form a coherent, single topic. "Former states of Italy" is not such a topic.
"Imperial Italy" generally refers to that part of Italy which was a part of the Holy Roman Empire. It's a standard term, as far as I know. Srnec (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't really disagree with you. However, I do think this navigation box has some use.
"Former states" is just a suggestion; "former states" is not really coherent, but "former monarchies" isn't either. Nevertheless, I think "states" is less arbitrary than "monarchies".
In my opinion, we should not discuss how such a nav box would be correct, but how it could be improved.
Have a look at Template:Greek_mythology_(deities). That box isn't coherent, nor complete, nor perfect. However, it is helpful and well-organized. "Former states" could be organized in the same way. What do you think? Michael! (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deities in Greek mythology is a single, coherent topic; whereas former states on the territory of today's Italy is not. The navbox would be improved, in my opinion, by breaking it down into several boxes on clearer topics. Another option is a "Post-Roman Italy" box that contains important articles on the political division of Italy in its post-Roman history, broken down by era. I incline toward several boxes. Below is a rudimentary example of what I mean. Srnec (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started to work on one large navigation box in my user space, which can be found here.

By the way, have a look at the box below (not really coherent, but it is useful). Michael! (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Here's the newest version, although incomplete. Feel free to improve it. Michael! (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC) User:Michael!/Template:Italian states[reply]

Erwig's genealogy[edit]

Hi Srnec! I don't know if you have any current interest in Erwig, but I left a response to your note on the Talk page there: the genealogy is questionable, at best. I definitely see the work of a certain banned contributor there. I don't know whether the footnote should be tagged or outright deleted. -- llywrch (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Emilio Faà di Bruno (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Conte di Cavour and Piave
Frederick of Antioch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ezzelino da Romano

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4th question[edit]

Thanks on Talk:Vizcaino. but do you support or oppose "(iv.) additionally also request RM participants comment on whether to add "Roberto Vizcaíno (1966) professionally known as Roberto Vizcaino, is a Spanish former tennis player" to lead sentence per WP:STAGENAME, in the event that the title be moved." In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Michael! (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liège Wars[edit]

Dear Srnec,
My apologies if I seemed a bit sharp in my edit summary. I accept that "Wars of Liège" has currency in English and I'm certainly happy (in light of the evidence which you provided) to retain that as the title. However, as you'll see in my edit, I think that the term "War of Liège" (singular) has no currency - and moreover sounds a bit odd. Would you therefore accept a compromise of using the terminology 1st Liège War etc. within the article itself?

Incidentally, before you look at the google book for the singular, several of the entries quote the term as used in a contemporary source and almost all are written pre-19th century anyway.

Just one more thing - when you rename a page, can you also change it on the foreign language section? Otherwise it simply becomes a foreign-language redirect page and you cannot see other versions. All the best,---Brigade Piron (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it might be best to include the "Liège" in the separate titles. Don't forget, many of the hits the page gets are redirects to individual sections anyway! What I mean about foreign languages is that, if you observe the page at the moment, there are ostensibly no versions in any other foreign language, because Wiki in its ultimate wisdom now has the thing cashed separately. In order to modify that, you need to change it here too. Would you be interested in adding to the article by the way? I tried, but I couldn't find enough decent sources... Anyway, all the best ---Brigade Piron (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adam de la Bassée, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rondeau and Monophonic (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) 12:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying user about missing file description(s) (bot - disable)[edit]

File:3 sons of Louis the German.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 22:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy[edit]

You're right, it's a big mess. I hope I've understand you correctly. Please respond at Talk:Taxonomy_(biology)#Requested_move if I'm wrong. Michael! (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:3 sons of Louis the German.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you.

About your reverts of my edtis on the talk pages of articles with the word "Ramiro" in them...[edit]

Could you please explain the reason why you are reverting my edits in the WikiProject templates for infobox requests? You did not leave a reason for your reverts in your edit notes. Currently, neither of my edits that you reverted are part of any portal or WikiProject that seem to have a "no infobox" clause per consensus. Also, without a photo in Ramiro Fróilaz, it kind of looks like a hoax article that was deleted a few months ago; the whole article only has pictures of geography in it, including the opening section, reminiscent of the hoax article which I cannot remember the name at this time. Steel1943 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are not photos from the Middle Ages, so it is a mistake to even ask for one. As for infoboxes, these articles are about people who do not clearly fit into any category for which an infobox exists by consensus. I do not want somebody unfamiliar with the subject matter to add a misleading infobox thinking it is required by guidelines. Srnec (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. And you are right, no photos. Unfortunately, there's no real way to specify between a "photo" and a "picture of a painting, etc." in the template's syntax; that might be a bit more clear. Steel1943 (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alamanno da Costa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syracuse (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) 13:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Louis, King of Sicily (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Plague and Regency
Ulger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Geoffrey Plantagenet and House of Anjou
Chronicon Gothanum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Providence
Vall de Ribes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pardines

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suebi vs Suevi[edit]

Sorry if i was to quick with changing Suevi links to Suebi. I just just thought that we should stick to the term used in the main article. Krakkos (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help and recommendations[edit]

Could you help out with an article about an alleged Spanish noble house? I was initially suspicious of the article House of Silva because it has no non-WP sources and it was created by someone with the name "Silvafamilie" -- strong indicators of it being a hoax. Maragm on eswiki said that they existed, and that Salazar y Castro wrote a treatise about them -- but that the article is less than accurate.

Maragm said that he couldn't help more than that, but that there are some "very good genealogists" on enwiki -- and recommended you by name. Do you have time to take a look?

Thanks in advance. DS (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it has already been stubified, which seems like the right call. The Silva are a bit out of my time period and I'm not really familiar with them. Srnec (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wars vs. wars?[edit]

Hi! I noticed you moved Arab–Khazar Wars to Arab–Khazar wars. Why? Are you going to move other Wars to wars as well, such as Italian Wars, Anglo-Dutch Wars, or American Indian Wars? Curious. Michael! (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, just ones that are not proper nouns. For instance, many writers say that the War of the Spanish Succession was the first world war, but they don't say that it was the First World War. "Arab–Khazar wars" is not a term of art and it has no accepted definition. Any war between Arabs and Khazars qualifies, so it's a common noun. Srnec (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the issue. Nobody is going to argue that civil war, or colonial war should be written with a capital W; those are just normal adjective+noun combinations. However, English Civil War and Portuguese Colonial War should have a capital W, since these are names for a particular series of events.
Titles should match the article's contents. Have a second look at Arab–Khazar Wars. Is it about wars between Arabs and Khazars in general (thus without a capital W), or is that article about a series of some specific events, which we call Arab–Khazar Wars (thus with a capital W)? I'm inclined to the second interpretation, and I fail to see how this case would be different from the Anglo-Dutch Wars.
Besides, even if your move was completely justified, it probably did more harm than good, since it caused several inconsistencies. For instance, the article's title is "Arab–Khazar wars", but inside the article, "Arab–Khazar Wars" is used half a dozen times, and "Arab–Khazar wars" never.
Michael! (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS:Byzantine-Parthian Wars or Roman–Persian Wars vs. Byzantine–Sassanid wars (a subset of the former)?
We do not get to make up proper nouns. That's the difference between "English Civil War" (an accepted term of art) and "Arab–Khazar wars" (a descriptive term, used by scholars, but not as a proper noun). Try Google Books. You'll see. If Aragon and Castile fought a war over Murcia in 1296 (as they did), I cannot name it the Aragonese–Castilian War or the War of Murcia. We don't make up names. I can describe it, however, as the Aragonese–Castilian war of 1296 or the Murcian war of 1296. Srnec (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I think consistency is important. Moving Arab–Khazar Wars to Arab–Khazar wars while still calling it the "Arab–Khazar Wars" in the article itself seems contradictory.
It might be a good idea to establish naming conventions for wars and conflicts (since none of these seems to apply). The closest to a convention I could find is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms.
Michael! (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article should have been changed to match the title. (Done.) We cannot enforce consistency by coining new names. Srnec (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With "consistency" I mean the article title should match its contents and vice versa, and the specific spelling inside an article should be consistent.
What is not really consistent is that Byzantine–Sassanid wars is consistently refered to as "Byzantine–Sassanid Wars" on its parent page Roman–Persian Wars and in the Template:Campaignbox Roman–Persian Wars, which is transluded on both pages. Michael! (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rahewin of Freising[edit]

Hi. I see you moved the article Rahewin of Freising. Why did you do that? The form "Rahewin of Freising" is that used in the only literature cited in the article. I realise the form you prefer is used in other literature, but unless you intend to expand the article using that literature, this was not a helpful intervention. I notice from the section immediately above this one that this is not the only time you have made a controversial article move without consultation. May I respectfully suggest that before you move an article (especially one on which you have not yourself worked) you propose the move on the article's talk page and seek consensus, as is usual practice? --Doric Loon (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article because the chronicler is the primary topic for the name Rahewin, i.e., it is unambiguous. This has nothing to do with my preference. And how do you know I was not intending to expand the article with other sources? Mierow's English-language translation of Rahewin's continuation of Otto of Freising does not call him "Rahewin of Freising". I am using Mierow's work on another article I'm preparing at the moment. Why would I not beef up Rahewin's article while I'm at it?
I always propose moves I believe to be disputable or potentially controversial and never waste time proposing moves I do not believe to be either. Such is the case with the made-up name "Arab–Khazar Wars", which no sources use, but which is just fine as a descriptive title (and as such, not capitalised like a name). Such is also the case with Rahewin in light of naming policies, whether the relevant sources are cited in the article yet or not. Usual practice is to be bold. If you dispute the move, revert it and I will open up a discussion. See WP:BRD. —Srnec (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you weren't going to beef up the article: please do. I have nothing invested in the name, but it seems like a move from more helpful to less helpful. Mierow does not need the long form because Otto is already his context. That is not true of everyone coming to Wiki looking for Rahewin. And certainly, not even leaving the longer form somewhere in the article is a bit silly when it clearly is in use. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Operation Bora[edit]

G'day Srnec, welcome to the Operation Bora special project! Feel free to have a crack at improving any article listed, and add any ones you think should be included. We've just finished prepping Yugoslav coup d'état (it has been nominated for GA review), and the current "priority" article is Invasion of Yugoslavia. The rough short-term plan is to get those two articles to GA and create Occupation of Yugoslavia, get it to GA as well and submit them as a good topic. Feel free to suggest where we go from there. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

This message is being sent to you 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 for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! You may receive a duplicate notice on this matter as this one is being given manually because our bot is down; you may receive another when it comes back up. --TransporterMan (TALK) 21:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...[edit]

For this. Definitely getting a bit outside my normal range of subjects. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Barisone II of Arborea: “The right of sardinian people is a unique kingdom”, Dino Punchu, I libri iurium della Republica di Genova, Roma, Ministero per i Beni Culturali, n°382 pag. 317
  2. ^ C. Zedda-R. Pinna, La nascita dei giudicati, proposta per lo scioglimento di un enigma storiografico, su Archivio Storico Giuridico Sardo di Sassari, vol.n°12, 2007, Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche dell'Università di Sassari
  3. ^ F. Pinna, Le testimonianze archeologiche relative ai rapporti tra gli arabi e la Sardegna nel medioevo, in Rivista dell'Istituto di storia dell'Europa mediterranea, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, n°4, 2010
  4. ^ Archeological museum of Cagliari, from Santa Sofia church in Villasor
  5. ^ Antiquitas nostra primum Calarense iudicatum, quod tunc erat caput tocius Sardinie, armis subiugavit, et regem Sardinie Musaitum nomine civitati Ianue captum adduxerunt, quem per episcopum qui tunc Ianue erat, aule sacri palatii in Alamanniam mandaverunt, intimantes regnum illius nuper esse additum ditioni Romani imperii." - Oberti Cancellarii, Annales p 71, Georg Heinrich (a cura di) MGH, Scriptores, Hannoverae, 1863, XVIII, pp. 56-96
  6. ^ Crónica del califa ‘Abd ar-Rahmân III an-Nâsir entre los años 912-942,(al-Muqtabis V), édicion. a cura de P. CHALMETA - F. CORRIENTE, Madrid,1979, p. 365 Tuesday, August 24th 942 (A.D.), a messenger of the Lord of the island of Sardinia appeared at the gate of al-Nasir (...) asking for a treaty of peace and friendship. With him were the merchants, people Malfat, known in al-Andalus as from Amalfi, with the whole range of their precious goods, ingots of pure silver, brocades etc. ... transactions which drew gain and great benefits
  7. ^ Constantini Porphyrogeneti De caerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, in Patrologia cursus completus. Series Graeca CXII, Paris 1857
  8. ^ R. CORONEO, Scultura mediobizantina in Sardegna, Nuoro, Poliedro, 2000
  9. ^ Roberto Coroneo, Arte in Sardegna dal IV alla metà dell'XI secolo, edizioni AV, Cagliari 2011
  10. ^ G. Seche, L'incoronazione di Barisone "Re di Sardegna" in due fonti contemporanee: gli Annales genovesi e gli Annales pisani, in Rivista dell'Istituto di storia dell'Europa mediterranea, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, n°4, 2010
  11. ^ Dino Punchu (a cura di), I Libri Iurium della Repubblica de Genova, Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali, Roma, 1996, n°390, pag.334
  12. ^ F. CODERA, Mochéid, conquistador de Cerdeña, in Centenario della nascita di Michele Amari. Scritti di filologia e storia araba; geografia, storia, diritto della Sicilia medioevale; studi bizantini e giudaici relativi all’Italia meridionale nel medio evo; documenti sulle relazioni fra gli Stati italiani e il Levante, vol. II, Palermo 1910, pp. 115-33, p. 124
  13. ^ B. MARAGONIS, Annales pisani a.1004-1175, ed. K. PERTZ, in MGH, Scriptores, 19,Hannoverae, 1861/1963, pp. 236-2 and Gli Annales Pisani di Bernardo Maragone, a cura di M. L.GENTILE, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, n.e., VI/2, Bologna 1930, pp. 4-7. 1017. Fuit Mugietus reversus in Sardineam, et cepit civitatem edificare ibi atque homines Sardos vivos in cruce murare. Et tunc Pisani et Ianuenses illuc venere, et ille propter pavorem eorum fugit in Africam. Pisani vero et Ianuenses reversi sunt Turrim, in quo insurrexerunt Ianuenses in Pisanos, et Pisani vicerunt illos et eiecerunt eos de Sardinea.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srnec/Archive,_18_May_2011–15_May_2013&oldid=1142539302"