Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:36, 28 March 2008

Archived material is made available for viewing through this blue line of text. Just click it to open up a whole new world to explore! Or ignore it and do something useful.

Burgundian Circle

Hallo Srnec, it's been a while but there is a new conflict with Michael Sanders. Could you please have a look into it. It is about the Burgundian Circle and extends over many articles. My latest posting you can find on User talk:Michaelsanders. Cheers, Str1977 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanders and the Proto Holy Roman Emperors

Srnec, I noticed Sanders moved (without any discussion I can see) a bunch of the pre-Holy Roman Empire neo-Roman emperors. I think this is ridiculously unnecessary, and I would normally just move them back, but am I gonna be the only one who objects to these new names? I don't wanna waste any more of my time on that kind of thing. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Neo-Roman is not a term in usage. Though Holy Roman Emperor is a term projected back on Charlemagne's successors (but strictly to all prior to the Hohenstaufens), it is widely used in that way. Str1977 18:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing much wrong with it for the rulers after Otto I (though I'm not sure it's all that good a way of dabbing) ... but Lambert, Holy Roman Emperor is just odd. It was better at the established title Lambert of Spoleto. Yeah, I know that the title is just as projected back on Lambert as Otto, but it's rather odd to do it, as it's so rare and besides gives the impression that Lambert ruled the state we think of as the Holy Roman Empire] ...which he certainly didn't. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it gives the impression that he held the title "Holy Roman Emperor". "Lambert of the Holy Roman Empire" would indicate that he ruled the Holy Roman Empire. Michael Sanders 19:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And for that matter, it is a subject of significant debate as to who was the first to rule the "Holy Roman Empire". Certainly Otto I didn't in real terms. Michael Sanders 19:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Deacon's the only one calling them 'neo-Roman Emperors'. Historians commonly use 'Holy Roman Emperor' from Charlemagne onwards, it would be ridiculous to use different terminology. Michael Sanders 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the articles be styled such. But your moves should be reverted if they are against community opinion. You're then free to use WP:RM. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's complained so far, and it's been quite a while. Unlike that time in 2006 you moved all the Scottish Kings without consultation. Michael Sanders 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm complaining cause I just noticed. I dunno what Srnec thinks, but from looking over Carloman I I'd guess people just know you're gonna revert them anyways, so it's not really worth it. But Guy, Holy Roman Emperor? Come on?! Do you have any problems with the WP:RM process we should know about, btw? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Carloman I, it should have come back no consensus...what with the only two editors taking part failing to agree. I could, incidentally, say the same thing for the various Scottish kings you insist should be named in unheard of forms. (And you're a fine one to talk, really, since you were the one who made all those unrequested moves in August 2006, and then kicked up a fuss when everyone else bore down on you and told you no.) Michael Sanders 19:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not for you to decide, Sanders. Carloman was closed by a neutral admin ... you object, you don't revert him, you file a request for another RfM. And btw I was entitled to move those kings if I thought it uncontroversial (which I did), but not to move them in opposition to a RfM decision. I'm also entitled to argue for what I think is right as much as I like, and to make RfMs whether or not I anticpate opposition. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On January 9, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Simon Doria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kings and Emperors

There were no doubt supporters of Bonnie Prince Charlie who thought he was legitimate monarch. And people who thought Charles II was legitimately King from 1649. However, we follow historians in dating Charles II's reign from 1660. That's the only way to do it - we should not be making our own judgements on the legitimacy of monarchs, but following the authority of historians who write consistently of there being, from 1254 at the latest, a "Great Interregnum of the Holy Roman Empire" lasting until the election of Rudolf of Habsburg. We're not here to rewrite history, only record what historians tell us. Michael Sanders 08:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also, "King of the Romans" should be used in the way I suggested (i.e. "formally King of the Romans"). It is often used, it would be unhelpful to not include it.Michael Sanders 08:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Srnec, your input on this situation is appreciated. You seem to have the same concerns about this "fake category" of titles in pretence. My main concern is the creation of fake successions (Conrad IV - Rudolf I vs. Willliam - Richard/Alfonso - Albert), especially the one jumping over decades. In English terms, it is as if the Empress Maud was succeeded by Charles II just because their claims were opposed at one point. Str1977 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD

I agree, sort of, with the comments in favour of deletion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 8#Template:Carolingians.2C Middle Francia, but really the other guy is right: it should all be agreed in advance. So, no opinion from me. I'm thinking of writing something about Adelolf, Count of Boulogne, but all I know is that he went on an embassy to England and arranged the burial Edwin, son of Edward the Elder. fr:Adalolphe de Boulogne is the guy. I have an article half-written in my sandbox, but I'd like to have enough to make it worth while. Do you have any info on this man? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers, much appreciated! On the subject of adminstuff, Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature is now generally available to all editors. If you think it would be at all helpful, drop me a note and I'll turn it on for your account. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mayors of the palace has been superseded

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Mayors of the palace, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Mayors of the palace has been superseded by a similar category (typos in name, expanding abbreviations, fixing capitalisation, renaming to comply with the "by country" format and conversions from singular to plural or vice versa). (CSD C2).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Mayors of the palace, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Spectroscopy#Information

Hi Srnec, I am rather surprised that a number of very bonafide scientific forms of spectroscopies were excised.

I think it may have something to do with the very narrow and outdated definition of the term spectroscopy in the article. In modern science pretty much any measurement done as function of either wavelength or frequency is called a spectrum and there is good reason for that: usually frequency is directly related to the change in energy the studied system undergoes. This is why there are mechanical spectroscopy where a response is measured as a function of the frequency with which a sample is deformed or dielectric spectroscopy where the same is done with an AC field. I hope the article can be brought closer to common scientific practice? Jcwf (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have tried to improve on the definition part and added some things but it is still a bit of a mess Im afriad. Actually it is not surprising in a way, spectroscopy being such a hugely wide topic.

Cheers

Jcwf (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Help

Ciao! As usual I'm asking you if you can help on the Abd ar-Rahman III article that I've just expanded... maybe you can also add further infos from your precious sources. Ciao and good work!! --Attilios (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi Srnec, I'm trying to create a critical mass for this here Any suggestions Jcwf (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mongols

I don't care WHICH version we start from, if we can just get them both discussing the contents, and not each other. You have my support, if you need it voiced more clearly, please let me know. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Elonka based the smaller version on PHG's, it really shouldn't matter that much, and I agree it is easier to cut than to pad. I like the end result of the smaller version, it has less sourcing issues for me, but it's also important to get folks talking rather than reverting. Having read both pretty closely (at least in sections) it's clear that the smaller is based off the larger. I'm afraid at this point, both have too much tied up in "winning" though... that's going to be the issue. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since PHG has been doing massive editing already on the article, you might want to give him a heads up on his talk page so he sees your note. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Srnec, thanks for the message, but I'm afraid that I can no longer see PHG's efforts as being in good faith. Especially with his recent deception where he was putting "revert" in the edit summaries, while in actuality he was pumping more new biased information into the article.  :/ Just over the last few days alone, he's added about 50K of biased information, which wasn't in the article when I tried to condense it in the first place! Though I have respect for your opinion, it is my feeling that we have already tried, for months now, to treat PHG with courtesy and good faith, and that he has not responded in kind. He has edit-warred, ignored AfDs, created multiple POV forks, inserted biased information into about 50 different articles, deliberately lied in edit summaries, and a long list of other things which add up to a picture of someone who is just not capable of working in a good faith and cooperative manner with other editors. Frankly, the only reason that I haven't taken this to ArbCom yet, is that I didn't want to have to waste even more time digging up all the diffs that would be necessary. It's my opinion that ArbCom is a "last resort" for complex cases, and I just don't see PHG's behavior as that complex: He's got his bias about a Mongol alliance and the Mongol conquering of Jerusalem, and he wants to get it into Misplaced Pages, no matter what the cost, no matter how many other editors disagree with him, and no matter what lies he needs to spout in order to confuse the issue. He's very damaging to Misplaced Pages, and I don't think we should spend any more time trying to appease him. We need to draw a line and say, "Abide by consensus, or please leave."

If we were to try what you are suggesting, meaning a revert to his (padded) 200K version and then discussion, here's what I think would happen: We'd pick a single section to discuss, and we'd suggest a rewrite, and PHG would oppose the rewrite, saying the information was referenced and shouldn't be removed. We'd try to persuade him, he'd oppose, we'd say we had consensus, he'd oppose, we'd try to change the article, he'd revert, we'd take it back to talk and confirm consensus, we'd try to change the article again, he'd revert again, and then around it would go. Eventually the good faith editors would get sick of the cycle and the bickering, and just leave. So the article would sit in its "disputed" state for awhile longer, per PHG's plan. I think that most editors would rather have peace than accuracy, so if no one's complaining at the talkpage, they're going to leave it alone, even though the article is still tagged as disputed, simply because no one would have the energy to keep fighting. So the article would stay in its disgraceful condition until someone else objected again, and then the cycle would repeat. But ultimately we'd still have the WP:OWN issue, where no change would "stick" to the article unless PHG personally approved it.

I've tried to break that cycle, by creating an independent rewrite in my userspace. I spent a long time painstakingly trying to build consensus for it, and then when I had consensus, I incorporated most of the rewrite into the main article. PHG of course reverted, and some of the editors who had gone along with the rewrite, rather than sticking around to confirm consensus, have again left in disgust. A few others though (WJBscribe, Shell Kinney, Aramgar, Kafka Liz) have been willing to try and enforce the consensus, but it's been a tough road, and I can tell that they're getting exhausted by PHG's tactics as well. I just don't think anyone else who really knows this subject is willing to spend the many hours that it would take to painstakingly discuss every paragraph of a 200K article, especially with PHG fighting a rearguard action every step of the way. So let's not go with PHG's version and "whittle," because I think that's going to be a nightmare. Instead, let's go with my rewrite, and let's build on it. It's easy enough to see PHG's old text in edit history, it's not like the information is gone forever (and I really don't think there's anything in there that has to be re-added, but I'm fine on discussing it). What I really think we need to do though, is to get a condensed stable form of the article, get the "disputed" tag off of it, and then bit by bit add anything that needs to be re-added. I think that that is our best option for peace, and accuracy. --Elonka 23:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(reply) Heh, have you ever been through an ArbCom case? I have, and though theoretically they're supposed to result in decisions by a group of wise and thoughtful Wikipedians, often they're just circuses that end up having no real effect. Even in the best cases, they're about as much fun as a root canal. They are Wiki-pain for all involved, especially because cases are open "debates" that bring in all kinds of thrill-seekers and conflict-junkies and nutcases who know nothing about the topic, but will want to sit around and throw peanuts and insults at all involved. It'll also probably take months. As for what might result, the most extreme scenario might be that PHG would be banned completely from Misplaced Pages, but I doubt that'll happen. He also might be banned from editing in the topic area of the Mongols, under threat of block, which he might or might not cooperate with, which would have us in roughly the same situation that we are now, where he's reverting and we're trying to find an admin that'll help us deal with him. Or, we might end up going through months of ArbCom, with PHG and the peanut gallery throwing up mountains of smoke and chaos to confuse the arbs, and the final decision might end up being nothing but "Content dispute, work it out yourselves, go away." So, bottom line, ArbCom is an absolute last resort as far as I'm concerned. I have no intention of filing a case unless I feel that I've tried every other possible option, and even then, I'm not entirely optimistic that it would do any good. --Elonka 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Greece

Dear Srnec, could you have a view on this and comment? Thanks, Str1977 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Constantine

I don't at all mind you disagreeing with me on this, but I would like to reassure you that I am a Presbyterian and have nothing at all against Christians of any other denomination. I don't think your comparison with Augustine is an appropriate one. In the UK there are two well-known saints of that name. There are not two well-known Constantines, there is only one (in my opinion, of course). Deb (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting, because I didn't even know there was a film - and I might revise my opinion in the light of that. (Is it out in the UK yet, I wonder?) But you're right, it's precisely because I've studied Classics that I have normally heard him referred to as just "Constantine". I do not claim that "Constantine the Great" is rare, or even that it is not more common than "Constantine I". But I would say that, whereas "Alexander the Great" is usually referred to as "Alexander the Great" by most people, I don't think that Constantine falls into the same category. Deb (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cilicia

Out of my field; I'm a Hellenist. I'll see what I can find out. Is Ruben Reuben, however? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 17:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

Could you please activate your e-mail function? Str1977 12:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be activated now. Srnec (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Aznar family

In the article Aznar Sánchez of Gascony, you claim that He was the founder of the Aznar family.

I have serious doubts about that claim, as AFAIk, only his brother Sans succeeded him. I have placed a "fact" tag on that claim but I would seriously suggest to remove it altogether, as I'm positive no relation can be determined between that early medieval count (who had no known descendants) and the modern Aznar families. Aznar was then just a first name. Only later would first names and patronymics like Sánchez or López become stable surnames.

Also, it seems that Aznar only ruled over a fraction of Vasconia (not yet Gascony), known as County of Vasconia (see Duke of Gascony - and talk if necessary), as the Ducal title was then in hands of other people, appointed by the Frankish monarchs (Seguin and later William or Guillaume).

Aditionally, it's worth noticing that the battle that Aznar and Eblus lost is actually the third Battle of Roncevaux (browse in that article for the references) and not the second. yet, as you put that as a quotation, I did not dare to alter it.

Regards, --Sugaar (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case you should surely clarify. "Aznar family"/-ies means to me modern people of that surname, at least on first sight. I haven't read that Lewis and, in any case I see no reason to describe one faction as "Aznars", specially as this count Aznar was apparently relative of the rulers at Pamplona (Inigo Arista) and Tudela (Banu Qasi) and possibly as well to the previous independent Duke Lop III Centulo - and that is the only historical reason for him to survive the battle of 824.

He and his brother, the only members of that dynasty that can be confirmed as relatives had the patronymic Sancion (Sanchez). It's also alleged that Sans III Mitarra was son of this one, so the Sancion/Sanchez family name would seem more logic.

Also it doesn't seem that Aznar himself defied the Carolingians. Only his brother Sans would. But anyhow, the important thing is that the meaning of "Aznar family" is clarified, please.

On a side note: why do you use Spanish names for Basque/Gascon rulers? Specially if your source is English. --Sugaar (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Darius

Nothing wrong with that. I should have checked the timing; but it didn't occur to me that it was so close. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re, Islamophilia

I replied to your message on Talk:Emirate of Sicily and please don't try to claim three people are aruging on your side when only me and you are still discussing. Remember Misplaced Pages is not a personal blog. The historic emirate already covers all the possible range of information on the topic and so I correctly redirected it as for the reasons I've just said to you on the article talk. Feel free to reply, however I feel that this has more to do with your and Jagged's personal Islamophilia than it does to southern Italy. - Gennarous (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What really is your problem? I've compromised and not just simply redirected your pointless double up article and yet you continue to insist on heavily loaded POV languages which portrays an anti-Neapolitan and Sicilian stance in it. If my suspcions of your Islamophilia is not correct then please tell me what is your problem to try and degrade the history of that? Even now, you are coming to me with things about other pages! like of the kings of Sicily and Naples. Really I'm starting to lose my patience. - Gennarous (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:HREmperors

I posted a note of this on WP:NC(NT), and I like I said there I wasn't sure how acceptable those names would be beyond the short term. I'm personally not too fussed where they end up ... wouldn't like them to be at Holy Roman Emperor ... but not too fussed. Some of those monarchs already followed the "of Italy" format, less demeaning to their imperial majesties than the likes of "Lambert II of Spoleto". Really, it's unlikely I will personally find any move correction you make objectionable, as you seem to share my wider historical concerns. So go for it as far as I'm concerned, but you'll know well enough it might be better to go through WP:NCNT first. All the best, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk • contribs) 07:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

dyk

On 3 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guilhem de Montanhagol, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

On March 6, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Garin lo Brun, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Kings of Cilicia

Moved the Hetoums to Hethum but you'll need to get an admin to move Hetoumids to Hethumids. — AjaxSmack 07:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bishops

Srnec, can you hold the horses with the bishop moves? :) Reason is no guidelines have been formulated for bishop naming, and these moves are dividing these names into two different de facto standards. If you could add your say at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Western_clergy)#Western_bishops_proposal that would be great though! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Bernard, Bishop of Gaeta, was selected for DYK!

On March 10, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bernard, Bishop of Gaeta, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

longissimam agnoscere veritatis viam

Hi Srnec, I believe I have an explaination for why the the letter of 22 November 1248 does not follow the usual nameing conventions. My suggestion is of course original research but seems fairly obvious to me (here). Aramgar (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Spain/Portugal

Hello. I just noticed this comment you left at another user's talk page and thought that I should drop by and say that Portugal was never a part of Spain. In the period of 1580–1640 the Portuguese kings happened to be the same kings as the Kingdom of Spain's, but the Kingdom of Portugal remained separate. Of course, it was then naturally ruled by the Spaniards, but still, not a part of Spain. Regards, Húsönd 21:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Lewis Weis

It seems Andrea1952 (talk · contribs) has inserted Weis into a few hundred articles. Do you have the time and inclination to help remove them all? I got a few dozen but then I realized the enormity of the task, especially the farther back I go when it gets less easy to revert them... Adam Bishop (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

dyk well done on another one

On 15 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Protofeudalism, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--hmmm... Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusades task force

Hello again, I've created a Crusades task force as part of the Middle Ages WikiProject, so I thought you might be interested - I'm kind of bungling my way through getting it started, so any help would be great! Adam Bishop (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

re Protestant Reformation

lol... you added "and painlessly" in brackets to the sentence, "Wycliffe was posthumously burned as a heretic." Thanks for the chuckle. I read it 5 times and laughed each time. Maybe it's because I need sleep, but it's funny. Cheers,  Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 01:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much Srnec for your courageous support against my block. I truely appreciated your level-headedness, and your ability to see the truth in the middle of so many accusations I have been subjected to. I hope you're making some good progress on the Arab-Norman article :) Thanks again, and best regards. PHG (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Hi Srnec! Sorry to bother you, but if you don't mind could you kindly help me remove the tags at France-Japan relations (19th century), which have apparently been introduced to simply cast a shadow on the article without specific issues? If there are any specific requests to explain or reference certain points, I will gladly do so. Regards PHG (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Srnec) It is my belief that PHG wants the tags off, so that the article is more DYK-able. He's already submitted it as a self-nom for DYK. However, I am opposed to this, because I have already seen PHG use DYK in the past to put biased information onto the Misplaced Pages mainpage (such as about the alliances). The main problem with PHG's work, is that it often looks legitimate on first glance, but then when someone actually takes the time to doublecheck the sources that he's using, some major problems become apparent. I've already spotted some problems with the FJR article, related to how PHG is portraying Christianity in Japan. But to go into detail on each problem, requires an hour or more of my time to track down the sources and carefully document the concerns, and it's just exhausting, with PHG fighting a rearguard action every step of the way. So rather than watchdogging every edit, I'd rather just tag the article, and wait some time to see how it develops. Also, it doesn't have to be me that checks the sources. I'd be happy if anyone verifies the sources. If someone else who really knows this subject, comes along and says, "I've seen these sources, the article looks fine," then I have no trouble with the tags being removed. But just removing them on PHG's say-so? Sorry, no, I do not think that would be wise. Bottom line: I am not acting here to antagonize PHG. I am doing what I think is best to protect the integrity of Misplaced Pages. --Elonka 02:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I already opposed the DYK, yes. As for the other problems, I noticed that in the first draft of the article, PHG had basically just copy/pasted a lot of information from the existing France-Japan relations article, and then added the "Context" section which was the borderline medieval info. I was particularly struck by the lack of solid sources in that section, and then the link about the "persecution of Christians in Japan", which leads to Kirishitan, which, well, isn't really about the persecution of Christians in Japan. As I dug deeper, it looked like this was tied in to the spread of Nestorian Christianity, which was already a focus of PHG's with the Franco-Mongol alliance article. And as I'm working through the "List of articles for review", there are several articles there related to Asian Christianity which are requiring cleanup. Did you look at the duplication between Christianity in Asia and Roman Catholicism in Asia, both also created by PHG? It was just enough question marks coming up, that I cannot assume in good faith that the article is "okay". It may be necessary to request an extension of sanctions on PHG, to include other topic areas, but again, rather than take that step, I'd just like to take a "wait and see" attitude for awhile. It would help a lot if PHG were able to acknowledge that other editors have good faith concerns about his editing, but so far, PHG has not once acknowledged any credibility to anyone's concerns. He maintains that it's all just a lot of misrepresentations and harassment. And frankly, that does not fill me with confidence either. If PHG could just say something like, "Oops, I see I was getting a bit sloppy in my research, sorry, I'll try to do better," then I think we could try to give him some more leeway. But instead he's still in a mode of "PHG against the world," and frankly, I just don't trust his ability to do good research. But, as I said, I'm willing to "wait and see" on the current article. If he finishes it and then I (or some other editor) checks the sources and finds out that it's ship-shape, I'll be much more inclined to give him more freedom in editing other articles. But until then, I am looking at the new article, with just as much concern as all the other articles on the list. Does that help explain? --Elonka 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Planh -- bravo!

Nice to see a change to something in my watchlist that substantially changes an article for the better. Bravo! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. I have been doing a lot of troubadour-related work lately. Srnec (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusades

A fair question. It was one of the last instances, but the last? The Battle of Vienna, with its multinational Holy League is now seen in many books as the "Final Crusade". Although it would be fair to say that Napoleon defeated the last Crusaders when he captured Malta on his way to Egypt. The knights of St John remained "on Crusade" until the last. The Armada invasion was treated as Crusade, now if it falls with in the scope of the project or not is another question. I strongly advocate against narrowing the focus to the "eight or nine or ten" numbered Crusades, or just until the end of the middle ages (1453? 1492? 1517?). We will see what others think and play by consensus. -- Secisek (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Laurent Dailliez

Hi Srnec! Let me indulge in your proposal to put comments on your Talk Page... In the article Mulay, the French historian Laurent Dailliez is being qualified as a "modern "popular history" and pseudohistory writer" (last lines of the article). As far as I know, these are quite unfair and disparaging qualifiers for this author. I don't think there is there any reference for calling him so. In the negative, I would suggest that we replace these qualifiers by a more neutral "The French historian Laurent Dailliez". It is true that some of the conclusions drawn by Dailliez can sometimes be challenged by some other historians, but disputing each other's theses is what historians do after all. Regards PHG (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, to keep things from getting totally tangled here, can we please keep article requests on an article's talkpage? Then, if they're ignored, PHG is of course free to ping one or two individual editors to followup, though I'd see more than that as being disruptive. But if we start requests at usertalk, then we get odd edits like were just made to Mulay, that say "per request of PHG", but it's not clear what the request was. So, can we please keep these documented at the appropriate talkpages? That said, I don't have a big problem with the edit, though I'm not entirely understanding what "contrarian" means? --Elonka 23:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)