Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:06, 29 November 2008

User talk:Srnec/Archive, Beginning–8 January 2008
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 9 January–20 July 2008

Alfonso VI of León

Alfonso VI of León was crowned King of León when his father dead, and his brother was crowned at the same time as King of Castile. He was not King of Castile until the dead of his brother, and he was also King of Galicia and Toledo. I think the best is call him "Alfonso VI of León" by that reasons and rename the page. --Auslli (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Chalons

Hy there, I'm obliged to tell you that I believe that you were simply too eager with your move of 'Battle of Chalons'. I gave my reasons at Talk:Battle of Châlons. I hope that I explained my reasons in a understandable fashion and that you agree with them. In the case that you don't agree I invite you to reply asap. In the case that you don't reply I'm planning to make the proper move in accordance of Be bold (after two-three days). Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:March of Carinthia

You undid my attempt to make people understand that "March of Carinthia" actually concerns two quite different political entities. The first was a march of the Carlovingian Empire covering Carinthia, the later - which would be better named the "Carantanian or Carinthian March" - was a march of the Duchy of Carinthia covering Styria. If you read again what I had written you may, if you try, understand it after all. Otherwise leave me a note and I'll try better. Or do you mind if I undid your undoing? Marschner (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I will look into more closely. Srnec (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 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) 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review requested

Please take note that a deletion review has been requested for the category Category:Mononymous persons which was recently decided to be deleted. You receive this notification because you took part in the preceding discussion. __meco (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Guadalete.

Well done! You have finally done what many before you, including I, have failed to do; bring justice to the article. Tourskin (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the insert in Franco-Mongol alliance! Cheers PHG (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's a very interesting picture. And a well-sourced interpretation of it. Srnec (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 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) 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

salut d'amor

On 3 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article salut d'amor, 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.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matfre Ermengau, 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.

--Wafulz (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

On 6 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bartolomé Ramos de Pareja, 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.

Congratulations and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>° 04:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

9/08/08 DYK

On 8 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dante da Maiano, 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.

Congratulations! -- RyRy (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Florin (Irish coin)

I noticed that your page move was reverted. I've asked for the redirect page to be deleted. I agree that the article should be moved for consistency with other articles. --HighKing (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni Andrea Bussi-

On 10 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giovanni Andrea Bussi, 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.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 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 fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cerdanya

Cerdagne is the french name for Cerdanya so I think that it's better the originally name in catalan, whereas doesn't exist an english name for Cerdanya.
Sorry for my english. --Vilarrubla (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem (your English). Just to be clear, the original term is Latin, Ceritania. From this developed the Romance versions: French Cerdagne, Catalan Cerdanya, Occitan Cerdanha, and Spanish Cerdaña. I am not sure which of these is "oldest", but all these languages have a long history in the region: the original language was Occitan/Catalan (indistinguishable at an early stage), then Catalan. In upper Cerdagne French becomes common when it becomes part of France; in lower Cerdaña, Spanish is common enough because it is part of Spain. Until the Treaty of Corbeil in 1258, Cerdagne was legally a part of France. With the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659 it was divided between Spain and France. It is and since the Dark Ages always has been a Catalan-speaking region. It just so happens that in a medieval context, for whatever reason (greater familiarity by anglophones with French than Catalan?), the term "County of Cerdagne" is more common (though not by much) than "County of Cerdanya" (if we trust GoogleBook, which backs up my personal experience). Also, let's not forget that for many things (because of this and that) the English word is the same as the French one. Srnec (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Centule VI of Béarn

do you have a source for that article you created just wounding if you do please post it thanksOo7565 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a translation from another Wiki (French? Spanish? Catalan?), hopefully someday I'll get to finishing my work on the Gascon nobility. Srnec (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Gaimar

Hello. I nominated this for clean-up and should have specified why in the edit summary. I was unsure if this should count as a hndis, or given name and surname, or all three. Would you mind having a look at it again and seeing if anything needs changing? Thanks, Hndis (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware: G(u)aimar/Waimar is a given name. In all cases. Geoffrey Gaimar just happens to have two names, methinks. I could be wrong, but that is my impression. Srnec (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Jacopo da Carrara

An article you created has been nominated for deletion. Please see WP:PROD for how to contest this. Thanks, Hndis (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Euin

On 27 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Euin, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bureba

A tag has been placed on Bureba, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Misplaced Pages page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Overmind 900 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Jacopo I da Carrara

On 3 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jacopo I da Carrara, 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.

Cirt (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Andrieu Contredit d'Arras

On 4 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andrieu Contredit d'Arras, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Lu rebellamentu di Sichilia

On 5 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lu rebellamentu di Sichilia, 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.

– RyanCross (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 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) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Anastasiu di Iaci

On 7 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anastasiu di Iaci, 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.

Cirt (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dukes of Bavaria

Hi there. Thank you for you comment and imput. I'm very sorry, I do not understand your suggestion. You want to split the wikitable to enter subheaders? In this case I strongly oppose. The positive effects of a sortabele wikitable splitted is zero, imho. As for the intro. As you see, it's just the copied content of the intros of the subsections and I'm not satisfied with this 'rewritten' part at all. I think of a more prose-style lead, but my English is ... bad. Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I will edit the page and you sill see what I mean. I don't think you'll object. Srnec (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You edit MY List of Dudes of Bavaria? No, feel free to do so. Sebastian scha. (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to know if you have more plans for it, since you are doing a good job and my edits may prove unnecessary. Srnec (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to press all rulers in this one list -- including the kings of wittelsbach at the end of the page. Then I want to try myself at the lead and there should be a Dynasty overview -- giving short background information and linking to {main|house of ...}. The prose sections will be hard, because I don't speak English too well, so I hope on support. Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I think your ideas are similar to my own. I can help with prose if there are English issues. (And I think we need dynastic overviews and colours for the Luxembourgs and Salians.) Srnec (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

May you have a look at the Dudes of Bavaria now? I've done my best to structure the List of rulers of Bavaria and tried myself at some short information. Maybe you are able to do a ce? Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I just skimmed over the wittering about the meaning of "to decimate" and completely missed the original remark that set you off. I've certainly bitten people on less provocation. Thanks for making the change and avoiding the issue. Choess (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All is well. Srnec (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Catalonian Civil War

On 8 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catalonian Civil War, 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.

muy bien! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Berthoald/Regino

Hey Srnec, I don't see any English version of Regino either, just a lot of Latin editions and some obscure German studies.

For the Latin, the first bit says:

"Dagobert, son of Clothar, fighting with the Saxons, was wounded gravely by then, and he called for help from his father, who quickly came with an army, and when their Duke Berthoald had been killed, he conquered the Saxons by force, so that he killed all the inhabitants of the land of the virile sex..."

From "qui gladii" to "excessissent" I'm not sure, but I think it is something like "who had died along the length of a sword which he was then carrying", i.e. he ran them all through with swords.

The song is:

"There is a song about King Clothar of the Franks, who went to fight against the Saxons, what a burden would have come forth for the messengers of the Saxons, if Faro had not been struggling against the Burgundians..."

"...When the messengers of the Saxons came in the land of the Franks, where Faro was prince, with the instigation of God they passed through the city of Meaux, so that they would not be killed by the king of the Franks."

The "quam grave" part is odd too, I guess it means "how tough it would have been", i.e. if Faro wasn't busy the Saxons would be in even worse trouble.

I don't really know the background of this period very well, and it doesn't help that 10th century Latin is usually pretty terrible. I hope this helps though! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! By the way, would you be interested in expanding/referencing the thirteenth century parts of Kingdom of Jerusalem? I see you often write about that period, and I'm not sure I'll ever have time for it... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Natanleod

I was very interested in your comments on the discussion page for Natanleod. I have now read up on the matter, particularly from Stephen Oppenheimer's writings, and I am thinking of rewriting the Natanleod article to take account of it. However, it seems to me that it is central to your argument that 'The only reason ... that it has been stated that Natanleod was "not a real king" is that his name is clearly Germanic'. Do you have any reference for this being given as the reason? I should like to be able to give such a reference if possible. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You have confused an anonymous comment for one of my own. I merely tried to show that the Natanleod-as-originally-toponym thesis was over a hundred years old. But if you want my opinion, "Natanleod" looks as likely to be Germanic as Celtic, and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography agrees with me insofar as it makes Netley derive from Germanic roots meaning "wet wood". Srnec (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. You are quite right. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Since this section exists only because I made a mistake, is there any reason for not deleting it? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I generally do not delete anything from my talk page. I just archive it eventually. This way it is all out in the open and I can never be accused of hiding anything, as editors whose talk pages are riddled with accusations and complaints often do. Currently this little discussion is a great example to any visiting Wikipedian about how minor errors ought to be handled by those who err and those who are confronted with errant beliefs. :) Srnec (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles the Bald

It's from de:, and though they don't have footnoted it, it's obviously "Reinhard Lebe: War Karl der Kahle wirklich kahl? Historische Beinamen – und was dahintersteckt. dtv 2003, ISBN 3-42330-876-1." (roughly "Was Charles the Bald really bald? Historical epithets and the story behind them"). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland

Having read over [http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Stefan Uros IV Dusan of Serbia - infobox

I believe there should be an infobox in every article about a ruler, especially in an article about an important ruler, as Tsar Dusan was (at least in Serbian history). And I changed the image placement, so you can't claim that it's worse when there is an infobox. Ostalocutanje (talk)

The issue of monarch infoboxes in important articles is currently being discussed here at Talk:Charlemagne. I oppose them, even moreso when the ruler is important. Srnec (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Rodrigo Díaz de los Cameros

Regarding this 'grandmother' Froila, a countess: Froila is just a variant of Fruela, not an abbreviation of Fronilda. My guess is that it was an authorial/editorial slip. As to making note of her being a countess, I don't know that we should be going there. With the exception of a few foreign women who held French titles in their own right (e.g. the countess of Urgel), there was no such title in Castile - a countess was simply a woman who was or had been married to a count. If a point is to be made, it should be that RDdelosC was grandson of a count, Rodrigo Perez el Velloso. Otherwise, we are doing the equivalent of pointing out that Henry II of England was king, just as his grandmother Edith/Matilda had been Queen (while ignoring Henry I). Agricolae (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that Froila = Fruela is a masculine (Gothic) name; I was just speculating on how it could possibly be derived from "Fronilde". But error sounds better now. I know nothing really about Rodrigo, except that he was a troubadour. I was just fixing a redlink when I created this article. I apparently researched him through GoogleBooks (among other things) and thought it worth including that he had 'comital' ancestors. I did not, for some reason, look at FMG, which would have cleared up the issue of Fronilde's significance. I read Barton, The Aristocracy in Twelfth-Century León and Castile, once, so I (thought I) was aware of the significance of a "count". I will tweak the entry based on FMG and you can see if the information left is worthy of inclusion. Srnec (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured review of First Crusade

I don't know anything much about the Crusades, but maybe you can save the First Crusade from being de-featured? Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. I am (real-life) busy at the moment, but I have good access to Crusade scholarship. I should at least be able to replace some of the citation tags with citations. And maybe work on the layout, images, and that pathetic "In arts and literature". Srnec (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The 50 DYK Medal

		The 50 DYK Medal
		For contributing over 50 articles to the DYK project, I hereby award you the 50 DYK Medal. Wear it with pride! Royalbroil 05:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Srnec (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sempad letter

Heh, that Gallica link you gave me is actually a facing-page Latin/Old French text. The Latin version of the letter was on the previous page. It's not exactly the same as the manuscript image we have, but I still did more work than necessary, as usual! Adam Bishop (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I never even thought to look there, even after I looked up William of Nangis's works and realised that I was looking at an Old French translation of the letter. But just think of all the valuable practice you got out of it... Srnec (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ekkehard III

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ekkehard III, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05370a.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 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) 01:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Leo the Mathemetician

I nominated your Leo article, which I thought was quite good, for DYK. The proposed hook is: * ... that Byzantine philosopher Leo the Mathematician developed a system of beacons to give advanced warning of Arab raids and invented a levitating imperial throne? The hook has spawned some controversy/discussion over whether the levitating throne was fabled, mythical, etc. If you want to comment, it's at the DYK suggestions page. Cbl62 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like somebody's already cleared it up. Thanks. Srnec (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Leo the Mathematician

On 20 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leo the Mathematician, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

How can you say Manuel de Sousa da Silva and Luíz Paulo Manuel de Menezes de Mello Vaz de São-Payo aren't reliable sources? Do you even know any Portuguese Genealogist or are you just saying they're not reliable? They're respected, as well as their work, and generally accepted as accurate. You don't even know them and you come here to destroy people's work!... What are you, a Historian at least, or an arrogant one who excludes other countries' views? He is based on Historical records and other investigators (which I could quote if I had the time and patience and if I knew which one corresponds to what exactly), you can't even dream of getting access to, you're not even Portuguese or Spanish!... Just because he is a Genealogist that doesn't make him less credible, since he solely bases himself (he's actually graduated in Sciences) on what is credible and can be seen on sources, and even I personally won't allow you to attack Genealogy with your prejudices against it as a Science! No one in their perfect mind will attack a reputed scientist who, among other works, discredited the claims of the Portuguese Columbus or perfectly corrected some of the interpretations of Freitas do Amaral's biography of Afonso I of Portugal. How can you say Oppas wasn't a Bishop of Seville if every Historian says he was, specially one of our foremost Historians, José Hermano Saraiva, author of some of our best History books? If you say something like that you're nothing but a vandal without any credentials who comes here and trashes everything! Who are you to delete other positions? If you keep attacking the idoniety of our best scholars they might end up proceeding against that. With all your arrogance you don't even mention the sources you claim to be more accurate!... Please don't vandalize my work and our History with your blatant ignorance of our investigators!... And making me loose my time, three times!... PS - Don in Oppas wasn't an anachronism, it was the common treatment given to Bishops since almost ever in the Iberian Peninsula. In fact, in all the History books I've actually read he is allways called Dom Opas!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have written some responses at various talk pages and in edit summaries, rather than engage in longwinded debate here. I urge you to follow this example. Srnec (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hello, Srnec! I've started moving articles whose titles do not match the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles). If a person was a grand duke, archduke, duke, marquess, count, or viscount, then the correct format is Name, Title of Place. If I moved Raymond VI of Toulouse to Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, you shouldn't revert my move just because titles of articles about other Counts of Toulouse are in wrong format. You should either move those articles yourself or ask me to do it. Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't take the naming conventions too seriously. They are not even conventions any more. They were made by a minority of Wikipedians in a past age when Misplaced Pages was a lot smaller, and they change slowly. They are not really helpful. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

They should be followed as long as they exist. The naming conventions are supported by many and they are very helpful. I do not agree with all the conventions, but I respect them. 90% of the articles about people who held a substantive title follow NC(NT). Why keep those 10%? Name Numeral of Place is reserved for Kings and Emperors. Now we have Louis III, Count of Blois, Louis XII of France, and Raymond VI of Toulouse. It's confusing and people might think that Toulouse was a kingdom. That's what it's all about. If you object to the naming conventions, please go to Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

They should not be followed just because they exist. Misplaced Pages's only global policy is "ignore all rules", because it captures the spirit of Misplaced Pages: making a better encyclopaedia.

How do you know the naming conventions are supported by many? Not by me. And how many? Even if many support them, do these constitute a majority? I disagree that they are very helpful: they are a nuisance that gets in the way of common sense. I do not agree with many of the conventions and those that I do agree with are just common sense. I respect them only insofar as they help build a better encyclopaedia, and no further. I will break them, as I am allowed to do so.

I don't know where you got your percentages, but do you have any proof? I can think of a lot of emperors that don't follow that format and even some kings: Constantine VII and Leo I, King of Armenia come to mind. People might think Toulouse was a kingdom, but then they'd be corrected by the article. Or, they might just ask themselves why they supposed that "Name # of X" implied that X was a kingdom in the first place. It doesn't in normal English, unless your intoxicated by Misplaced Pages's conventions.

Finally, please remember that controversial moves ought to be reported for discussion at WP:RM, regardless of whether they need an admin or are in line with current conventions. Srnec (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered why those rules exist? If all the articles followed Name of Place format, we would have nine articles called Henry Somerset of Beaufort (instead of Henry Somerset, Xth Duke of Beaufort). We would also have two articles under Ferdinand I of Austria: one about Ferdinand I, Archduke of Austria and the other one about Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria. Anyway, Misplaced Pages is not a place for your POV. As long as the naming conventions exist, you shall respect them. I'll repeat once more: if you disagree with the naming conventions, go to the talk page. I do not agree with some of the rules, but I do not create inconsistency by following my POV instead of the rules. Surtsicna (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not tell me what I "shall" do. I am not supporting inconsistency, as you would know if you knew about my "voting" record in move proposal polls. You have created far more inconsistency with your rather random page moves (I had to move William V of Aquitaine just to regain consistency). I support common-sense titles. I never said that I thought all articles should follow a "Name of Place" format. And I have not wondered why the rules exist, because there are no "rules", just policies, conventions, and guidelines, many of which are just outdated and no longer represent consensus (or never did). Misplaced Pages has grown: "adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules". Have you ever wondered why nobody has thought to move some of the articles you're moving now since they were created years ago? Because everybody is happy with them where they are. If you have a controversial move, you should propose it at WP:RM. Srnec (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nobody has opposed the moves except for you. This is obviously a pointless discussion. I'll save my nerves for more important issues. Best of luck! Surtsicna (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, somebody else (namely me) is opposing the moves now. If a person is generally known by a name which does not fit the guidelines it is unhelpful to list them under a lesser known name which does fit the guidelines. And the line "a rule exists, therefore it must be right" is worse than merely unhelpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I know that every rule has an exception. I admit: moving Matilda of Tuscany to Matilda, Margravine of Tuscany is controversial, but I don't see much difference between William X of Aquitaine and William X, Duke of Aquitaine. The only difference between the two is that the second one is supported by the conventions. Perhaps I am too tied to them, but I like to have (for example) all dukes under the same title format, except for the exceptions (such as William Adelin). As I said, is there really such a major difference between William X of Aquitaine and William X, Duke of Aquitaine? Surtsicna (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what words I am putting in Surtsicna's mouth. The only view I have attributed to Surtsicna is that if a a rule exists, then ipso facto it must be followed; on this question, here are some of Surtsicna's own words:

(1) "They should be followed as long as they exist."

(2) "As long as the naming conventions exist, you shall respect them. I'll repeat once more: if you disagree with the naming conventions, go to the talk page. I do not agree with some of the rules, but I do not create inconsistency by following my POV instead of the rules."

Maybe I have misunderstood, but both of those seem to me pretty uncompromising. Nevertheless, it is good to know that Surtsicna accepts the case for exceptions.

On another point, the expressions "POV" and "NPOV" have generally accepted meanings in Misplaced Pages. These meanings are defined in Misplaced Pages:NPOV, but briefly the point is that where more than one opinion exists in regard to matter in an article, the article should not give undue emphasis to one of these views at the expense of others. It does not mean that one does not use one's own judgement in deciding how to format articles. Nevertheless, if one is to try to apply the sort of principles expressed in the NPOV policy to this case, one could do well to consider the following quotation from that policy:

'None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth . . .".

Finally, reading Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles) I can find no support at all for the view that the "conventions" are fixed rules. They are clearly intended as general guidelines. They repeatedly indicate this. For example: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English . . ."; "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used . . .". Also, I read ". . . there is no Misplaced Pages convention that an article called Name of Place implies the subject is royal; Hildegard of Bingen is one example". Admittedly this does not refer to "Name Numeral of Place", but I do not see that the principle is any different, and I can find no authority at all for the statement "Name Numeral of Place is reserved for Kings and Emperors".

JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: If you "don't see much difference", why do you care to force your opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikWarmelink (talk • contribs) 22:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Guy of Ibelin

Srnec, hi, I saw that you went through and removed the dab notes from several of the Guy of Ibelin pages. Will you please reconsider? As I've been working through the Ibelin pages, I've been finding that they are extremely tangled. Children from one "Guy" were posted on the page of a different "Guy", and history books frequently refer to "Guy of Ibelin" without making it absolutely clear which one that they are referring to. Though by strict interpretation of MOSDAB rules, the dab notes aren't necessary, I do think that they are helpful in this particular case. --Elonka 19:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert me then; I understand: many references to a Guy of Ibelin in literature will not tell the reader when he died or even what office he held, leaving the reader guessing as to which Misplaced Pages entry to go to for further information. I will revert myself later, if I can't think of a better solution than the hatnotes (which I despise unless absolutely necessary). Srnec (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

can/van

I think "But virtue van never be fully attained" (on your user page) is a typo. That is, I am too stupid to see a reason for it, and "c" and "v" are close on keyboards. If it is a typo, please feel free to remove this remark (if it isn't a typo, definitely feel free to remove this remark). Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a typo. Thanks. Srnec (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Best regards PHG (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)