| Revision as of 22:52, 16 December 2011 editParamandyr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers49,780 edits →Zengid dynasty: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:51, 17 December 2011 edit undoCarinae986 (talk | contribs)224 edits →Zengid dynastyNext edit → | ||
| Line 238: | Line 238: | ||
| I'm the one that wrote the reference for them being "Turkic". That is not the issue here. I have searched Volume 1 of the sources Carinae986 provided and Zengid/Zangid, Turkish and/or Persian do not appear on page 152. Here you can try. Enjoy! --] (]) 22:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC) | I'm the one that wrote the reference for them being "Turkic". That is not the issue here. I have searched Volume 1 of the sources Carinae986 provided and Zengid/Zangid, Turkish and/or Persian do not appear on page 152. Here you can try. Enjoy! --] (]) 22:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
| I am losing my cool with this guy. He obviously doesn't know anything about this topic, all he's doing is sitting on the sidelines complaining, he's unwiling to put even the slightest effort into this, and he constantly reverts edits because he has loony tunes ideas about how the citation process works. Nobody should have to cite items that are common knowledge among people with the relavant background. Notwithstanding, I did cite, twice, and that's still not good enough for this guy. Now he's complaining that he doesn't have instant access to my source online, and saying I have to type it out for his personal benefit, just to save him the tiny bit of added effort it would take to educate himself. You're a PhD and an Admin - am I wrong here? Can you help resolve this? If I have to go to the local university library and produce 20+ citations to the effect that Arabs spoke Arabic and Turks spoke Turkic, I'll do it just to prove a point with this guy. But it really shouldn't be necessary. It's like having to cite that the sky is blue or the grass is green. Anyway I'm hoping you can help here, because it's perfectly clear to me that I don't have any ability to persuade him on my own. ] (]) 14:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:51, 17 December 2011
- Archive: June 10-December 30, 2003
- Archive 2: December 30, 2003-July 15, 2004
- Archive 3: July 17-December 30, 2004
- Archive 4: January 1-July 13, 2005
- Archive 5: July 17-December 31, 2005
- Archive 6: January 3-July 19, 2006
- Archive 7: July 21, 2006-July 12, 2007
- Archive 8: July 17, 2007-July 2, 2008
- Archive 9: July 5, 2008-July 12, 2009
- Archive 10: July 17, 2008-June 30, 2011
Please rename this account on la.wikipedia
I am a user from de.wikipedia and my account has already been renamed on de.wikipedia, en.wikipedia and es.wikipedia. At the moment I am trying to complete this list in order to be able to close the process of renaming my accounts. I have made some contributions to la.wikipedia, which I would like to be attributed to my new account sulutil:Usquam. The confirmation of my account Usquam can be found here: . Thank you very much in advance. Yours sincerely, --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Redirect from Guillaume de Melun to William the Carpenter
A redirect you made in 2009 has come up at Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Why is there a re-direct from Guillaume de Melun to William the Carpenter? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Reasons To Delete J1c3d (Y-DNA)
- Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
- Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
- Categories representing overcategorization
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The hold on editing has been taken off without explanation, to my knowledge, as of this moment, without justification.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The one who took this off the edit hold did so without reading the talk page.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I refer to the article for J1c3d Y-DNA haplogroup as is indicated in the very first section of my User talk page.
Please see:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Haplogroup_J1c3d_(Y-DNA)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/Haplogroup_J1c3d_(Y-DNA)
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Vincelord
I am leaving you this message because recently i made edits adding people who were born on September 12, April 15, and December 22, and all mt addition were removed. They were notable people who have Wikipages, yet other editors removed them while keaving up far less notable people. What i want to know is who is supose to be listed on those pages, where my addition not notable enough, were they wrongly removed and if so should i put them back up. I don't want to start an edit war over this, if you have any advice on this matter let me know.Vincelord (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Changing username request
Hi Adam, could you kindly rename my account (la:user:Sogeking) to the new name Barbaking on la.wikipedia? It is my username on the italian wikipedia, and I'm renaming it globally. Here is a confirmation link on it.wiki. I wrote you some days ago on your discussion page on la.wiki, but probably you don't check it often :). Thanks in advance, --Barbaking (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
by any chance
Hey man, any chance you have access to this page? http://www.medievalsources.co.uk/stbertin.htm
Best, --Ioscius 09:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Your user page and a gift
Hello Adam, you might not remember that we have discussed in the past. I had not looked at your user page for a while, the list of comments you have there is really hillarious. I have something that you will also enjoy, a gift from some real academic scholars here (hoping that they have not changed it yet - I pointed it out to them). --FocalPoint (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Correct, but did you notice how they characterize Planoudes? (in the search page, not in the article)? They apply to him the nationality of ....! --FocalPoint (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Real academic scholars vs. illiterate friends 0:1 (because the characterization of illiterate does not correspond to you, be sure, it applies to us all, wikipedia editors and collectively, literate and illiterate, aspirant and unambitious, stupid and smart) --FocalPoint (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
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) 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate
Greetings,
My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.
I would like to include your Misplaced Pages user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Misplaced Pages present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?
With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.
I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.
Thank-you,
John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
jmcvea@ualberta.ca
Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussion still live
This is just a friendly note that the RDH discussion you participated at Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011_September_23#College_dating.3B_sociology.3B_hookups_vs_relationships is still live. You may also want to offer suggestions or take part in the discussions at the Talk:College dating. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
You're still around too?
Just a drive-by wave from a fellow disillusioned old-timer. For some reason I can't help myself from making improvements to articles like Odoacer or Aegidius. (I'd add needed sources to biographical articles about certain famous Vandals, but odd to say it's far easier for me to access primary sources like Procopius than to even find the names of secondary sources in this case. :-) -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't remember what I thought Misplaced Pages would be like now back when I started either, but I'm sure it was nothing close to what it has become. I did have the hope that Misplaced Pages would serve as an Internet outlet for intellectual studies, similar to how the literary quarterlies/small press movement has kept literary efforts alive beyond the colleges & intellectual circles. But instead of considering innovative approaches such as teaching potential contributors how to do research & write good articles, the Foundation appears more interested in spending its limited resources on things like image filtering. (If you haven't heard of that effort, you're happier not knowing.) Anyway, if you get any books into print I invite you to send me an email letting me know; I may not buy a copy (my financial situation has been frustratingly unstable recently), but I definitely would like to follow the course of your research. -- llywrch (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
vandalism
I ask to consider acts of vandalism party Neftici in article Lezgistan Lezgistxa (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Theta
Nice to hear from you! This use of theta is not unique to the Gladiator Mosaic. It's used twice on the paired mosaics recovered from the so-called Villa dei Symmachii, somewhere along the Appian Way. The text (including the theta) is given thorough scholarly treatment in James Henry Oliver's Symmachi, Homo Felix (1957) - d'you have access? That aside, I don't think this use of theta particularly widespread or generalised; but that's just me guessing from negative evidence. Tut. Cynwolfe has added some very useful info at my talk-page, on the military use of this sign. It's a fascinating business, and if I can be of further help, please let me know. Haploidavey (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Krak des Chevaliers
I noticed you still take an interest in the article and you started it, so I wondered what you thought of its current state? I've tried to throw in some background information as it's a high-traffic article. It's one of the most popular Crusades-related articles so I think it's possible some readers may be arriving here without much of background knowledge. I'd be interested if you think the current layout works. Until I started writing about the siege I though having information on the castle's layout after the history would be fine but when talking about the siege I'm worried readers may need a grounding in Krak des Chevaliers' layout. Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Saladin
Can you read the reference that states Saladin was "Arabized"?
Studies in Caucasian history, Vladimir Minorsky, Cambridge University Press, p??.
I see that it has no page number, so I was curious if you had access or had more information. A search through the book for the word "Arabized" gives 0 results. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Survey for new page patrollers
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Adam Bishop/archive11! 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.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC).
Vagobot
Hi Adam, could you please grant bot status to la:Usor:Vagobot? Thanks in advance! --Aylin 12:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
|
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) 01:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit conflict at RDL
Hi. I think you accidentally erased a reply of mine, which provided a couple of internal links and a few links to Wiktionary entries to the questioner. I restored my comment as it originally was, and placed {{ec}} right before yours. Hope you don't mind. --Theurgist (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I usually use the "Show changes" button before saving. That's especially helpful for avoiding the erasure of simultaneous posts on other sections. --Theurgist (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Otium
This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell 19:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Expanded article. Any ideas for a DYK hook?--Doug Coldwell 11:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've made it more concise. Does it need more "fine tuning"? Good Article possibility?--Doug Coldwell 17:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
|
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) 07:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Reason for undo?
Please do not abuse your editor privileges. Your reversion of the changes made on the Godfrey of Bouillon page are unfound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.228.133 (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
LouisPhilippeCharles
Regarding this diff, the user in question can comment on his talkpage (since talkpage access has not been revoked) unless there is an overriding block on his IP range. He is a serial sockpuppeteer and should not be unblocked, but advised to use the means of appeal that he has available noted by the block notices. -- DQ (t) (e) 08:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Saladin
Hi Adam,
in principle I agree with your reversions at Saladin - using 150 year old sources and selectively quoting them out of context and without regard to language changes is inacceptable. But formally you're over WP:3RR. Some Admins do no more then count, so to avoid trouble, it might be a good idea to be more careful in the future. I've semi'd the page, so there should be peace for a few days. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Your Undo to the Page Saladin
Hi Adam Bishop! First of all thanks for your services to Misplaced Pages.
However, I don't approve your undo and block to the page "Saladin". I think you should be objective about the historical evidences. I give you evidence which contains the term "Saladin the Turk", and you claim it is out of date, or you delete it for unknown reasons. As an academician, you know that the more a resource is close to the evident, the more it is of actual fact. In old texts of British historians, you can see the expression of "Saladin the Turk", and I ask you to add this fact to the article if you are really objective authors of the Misplaced Pages. Please read the page 357, section XI in the following ebook of archive.org: http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofchrist00reev#page/356/mode/2up
There are other resources as well, which uses the name "Saladin the Turk". We cannot ignore these facts. If you request, I can add here other historical resources of 16th century which uses the name "Saladin the Turk" for him. 78.167.13.185 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, my only advice is to bring this up on the Saladin discussion page (where, as you will probably see, it has already been discussed dozens of times over the years). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it has been already discussed by people many times. However, it is a fact that you ignore the discussions and never edit the article according to the discussions and resources provided. Even and even, you block people to edit it. I think you don't like Turks? :) Anyway, that's all what I'd say. Saladin the Turk is a fact, but you don't want it to be a reality, and you succeed in this job. You are free to edit it as the great and known authors of Misplaced Pages, but we are just readers of your minds. That was my last post. Good job! Thanks and bye...78.167.13.185 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Zengid dynasty
I'm the one that wrote the reference for them being "Turkic". That is not the issue here. I have searched Volume 1 of the sources Carinae986 provided and Zengid/Zangid, Turkish and/or Persian do not appear on page 152. Here you can try. Enjoy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I am losing my cool with this guy. He obviously doesn't know anything about this topic, all he's doing is sitting on the sidelines complaining, he's unwiling to put even the slightest effort into this, and he constantly reverts edits because he has loony tunes ideas about how the citation process works. Nobody should have to cite items that are common knowledge among people with the relavant background. Notwithstanding, I did cite, twice, and that's still not good enough for this guy. Now he's complaining that he doesn't have instant access to my source online, and saying I have to type it out for his personal benefit, just to save him the tiny bit of added effort it would take to educate himself. You're a PhD and an Admin - am I wrong here? Can you help resolve this? If I have to go to the local university library and produce 20+ citations to the effect that Arabs spoke Arabic and Turks spoke Turkic, I'll do it just to prove a point with this guy. But it really shouldn't be necessary. It's like having to cite that the sky is blue or the grass is green. Anyway I'm hoping you can help here, because it's perfectly clear to me that I don't have any ability to persuade him on my own. Carinae986 (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)