User talk:Adam Bishop/archive8

David Gruder

Regarding David Gruder--why was page deleted? It has been verified with help of wiki editors themselves. Please clarify as I have submitted request for restoration. Thank you. Tracey Lott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traceylott (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gunslinger1812:

I am a longtime reader of wikipedia with a lifetime interest in the Crusades, and have recently started contributing. As near as I can tell you undid my contributions. The original article was extremely simplistic and not at all accurate. I added information such as the combined Crusader-Portugese retaking of Lisbon in 1147 (part of the Second Crusade), the strategic success of the Third Crusade in retaking vital port cities, the economic driving force of the Crusades in the form of the maritime powers of Venice, Genoa, Pisa, and to some extent Angevin France, especially under Charles of Anjou, as well as a far more accurate picture of the Byzantine Empire in the late 1100s. I recognize that stylistically my additions may not fit with the original author, but that issue can be easily fixed by parentheses or spacing, not undoing. Please explain why you undid my contributions, as opposed to just adding spaces or parentheses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion for The Other Nite Show

Hi, I'd like to request you delete The Other Nite Show. It is a non notable community radio show from a minor AM station (and therfore not notable, if you don't delete it any other Australian community radio show could put up a page. Cheers, Ryan. 122.148.64.45 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Testicles

Adam Bishop lost his testicles in a fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.187.160 (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zadar

I really think that these articles need a change in the topic: Siege of Zara and Treaty of Zara. In both cases the city has a Venetian name Zara which became administrative and official name not earlier than 1409. The real name of the city was Iadera (Jadera - spoken Zadera in Dalmatian language by Dalmatian and Croatian citizens) in these periods: Siege of Zadar occured in 1202 and Treaty of Zadar in 1358. My proposal is to rename it as "Siege of Jadera" and "Treaty of Jadera", even Zadar should be more correct than Zara. Cheers Zenanarh 09:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought this was an encyclopedia... In that case nothing more to say, except this:

Iader - Liburnian or older;
Iader/Iadera - Antique (Greek: Idassa);
Iader/Iadera/Iadra (Jader/Jadera/Jadra - spoken Zader/Zadera/Zadra in Dalmatian language, Zadar in Croatian) - early Medieval (Greek: Diadora);
Jadera/Jadra (spoken Zadera/Zadra/Zadar), - Medieval (Venetian: Zara, Jatara)(Toscanian: Giara)(French: Jadres)(Arabian: Jadora, Jadera, Jadra - spoken as in English)...
Zara (administrative), Zadar and Jadra (spoken Zadra) mostly in use - 1409-1798
Zara (administrative), Zadar and Zara in use - 19th and 20th century til 1943
Zadar - 1943-present Zenanarh 22:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there are referencies to all sieges of Zara, Zadar and Iadera. But keep in mind this:
1. Referencies are important, but we create a reference too and this one is getting very popular, we have a chance to clean up a lot of faked history facts and make it more objective for the users in the future;
2. You're right concerning the scolarship of 19th century, maybe you don't know that it was a period of nationalistic struggle in Zadar between Croats who were majority and pro-Italians (only some of them were ethnic Italians) who were ruling minority - so a lot of material written and published in Italian language in those years was motivated and led by politics. As a result we have "Siege of Zara"! Is it correct? Of course it's much easier to leave it as it is. Zenanarh 13:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, you've fallen into your own trap. See your change [1].
Siege of Zadar (as you said "siege of Zara"). By whome? Venetians and French in the Fourth Crusade. Oh really? Venetians? And why did Venetians made a siege? Because it wasn't theirs. Venice wanted to capture Zadar. Especially for that reason it cannot be "Zara".
According to your logic, during the German attack on Poland in WW2, it would be "attack on Warschau" instead of "attack on Warszaw". Kubura 12:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I can see, Adam, you were involved in a little edit war about the name in the article already. It's dissapointing to see that your edits were fakes. And this one is an anthem of ignorance [2]. I believe it was just your ignorance nothing else. It seems that you're interested in the historical sieges, but in the same time it seems that your knowledge is limited only to that agenda and nothing else. Don't get me wrong. We can make this encyclopedia more objective, inertion wouldn't help. Zenanarh 08:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really, Adam? Well, if you can't live with the fact that Zadar has native Croat name, that's your problem.
"is known in English as the Siege of Zara" - I'm not sure about that. Which guide in English speaks about "Zara"? None.
Adam, some of those historical sources in English are obsolete, at least in terminology. Kubura 12:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the above sentences ad mostly deprived of fundaments and affected by Croat nationalistic POV. I've presented new arguments in the proper page. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population Expansion

The book I used is about world history but whether or not it about the Crusdaes doesn't matter because my point was that the European economy and population was not in decline or was not in a dangerous situation:

"As in other lands, increased agricultural productivity supported rapid population growth in Medieval Europe. In 800 C.E., during the Carolingian era, European population stoood at about twenty-nine million. By 1000, when regional states had ended invasions and restored order, it had edged up to thirty six million. During the next few centuries, as the agricultural economy expanded, population burgeoned. By 1100 [[[User:Tourskin|Tourskin]]: i.e. close to the first Crusade] it had reached forty-four million; by 1200 it had risen to fifty-eight million..."

So there you are, the population increased. This is a well known fact my friend, amongst many historians. The 11th century marked the beginning of the Fuedal era - the increase n peasants meant that more work could be done to feed these many mouths. And with many people, soldiers were raised to wage offensive warfare - Norman attacks on Arab Sicily, Spanish assaults on Moorish Iberia, First Crusade etc. Also, the rise in population, soldiers and order ended the viking age. The Crusade was a result of Europe having good times and in essence being able to spare many peasants and soldiers to an expensive military and religious expedition.

This is the book:

Bentley, Jerry H., and Herb F. Ziegler. Traditions & Encounters a Gloabl Prespective on the Past. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. New York: McGraw-Hil, 2006. pg 517.

Here is there website: www.mhhe.com

Glad to be of assisstance,

Tourskin 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mish mash of sources?

Well excuse me, someone of my position can only get hold of such books. I have never recieved any info from you advising what sources I should use. Well anyways, I have claerly explained my logic to you regarding the population of Europe expanding - I have explained their effects (increase military expansions) and their causes (restoration of order, end of viking age and "new" agricultural methods such draining marsh lands for more land etc...

I thought I had seen a better source for this, but here we are, taken from:

Madden, Thomas F. Crusades the Illustrated History. 1st ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan P, 2005

It says:

"...by the year 1000, the West was experiencing a sharp population rise and economic revitalisation that enabled it to begin to confront Byzantium and Islam as an equal. In fact, during the eleventh century momentum shifted substantially to western Christendom [ahem ahem First Crusade], as it became an aggressive Mediterranean force that threatened Byzantium and Islam on several fronts."

I hope this will assist in quelling any of your doubts

Tourskin 02:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering to continue your search - I just wanted to clarify that at the time farming was good overall and that it wasn't years of bad harvest as the article had previously mentioned. If farming was bad in 1095, then it would make sense - the vast number of peasants that left for Peter the Hermit's own crusade would be in part be explained by perhaps what would have been percieved as an "unusual" famine at the time, so making many people abandon their poor homes and farms and seek God's favor. So it seems that it was good farming for the most but bad farming towards the date of the crusade may have contributed to the willingness of the followers. Tourskin 00:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zadar/Zara

This is geting better and better. Incredible! Are you saying the city is called Zara in English!! I think the National Geographic Society might disagree with your esteemed oppinion, please look at an atlas before making such a controversial claim. This one for instance: plasma.nationalgeographic.com/mapmachine/. There you will find, for example, "Muchen" written as "Munich" but your "Zara", I'm afraid, is nowhere to be found. One more thing, I am no nationalist and am not motivated by nationalism in any way. I am, in fact, trying to REMOVE nationalistic distortion from Wikipedia. DIREKTOR 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC) By the way, a citizen of Croatia is a Croat.[reply]

Ok. Zadar is irrelevant. Is the entire Dalmatian coast (that shared Zadar's semi-Italian history) irrelevant by your personal standards then? Because I do not see Spalato there instead of Split, or Fiume instead of Rijeka or Pola instead of Pula etc.... One other thing, if I may. If you truly believe National Georaphic would overlook a European city and write it in a way that is not completely consistent with other names used in a specific map (i.e. the English version), then you either don't know what you are saying or are saying it in a cheap and desperate attempt to win an argument. DIREKTOR 01:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop, (not contesting the accuracy of Zara in this historic context) the name Zara came up during the period when the contemporary texts were translated (probably around the middle of the 18th century, I am not sure) to English, since the name of the (then long-time Venetian) city was Zara in the eyes of the world (though the local populace was divided on the name, a fact that obviously later surfaced). The typical historian/translator of the period would certainly not concern himself with the name of the city at the time of the Siege. btw, I am not saying the city is terribly significant in modern times, Bishop, but the fact that it is probably not so is itself unimportant here. DIREKTOR 20:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above claima are FALSE. See proper page. Regards--Giovanni Giove 16:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No theya are NOTA. See proper page. Ragards--DIREKTOR 16:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UWO vandal

Our friend 204.40.1.129 (talk) has again added his nonsense to the University of Western Ontario article: once after your message to him and once more after an additional message to him from me. Is it time to take more drastic action? — Grstain | Talk 14:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direktor and his many forums

Hi. This message is to inform you that the forumer Direktor is a well know propagandist of tito-style propaganda on the internet. He has been banned from other forums because of his harrassment against italians in Istria and Dalmatia. He has used other nicknames and WRITES ALWAYS IN A SYNCHRONIZED GROUP WITH OTHERS, who support him. He always writes to be of distant italian roots in order to obtain support for his harrassments (he often identifies Italians in Dalmatia with fascists), and writes even to be a "not nationalist" while he fanatically promotes the Tito Yugoslavia with many lies and deceits. An Italian forumer born in Istria.

LOL!! :D DIREKTOR 14:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Higher Criticism

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Higher Criticism, by Schutz (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Higher Criticism is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Higher Criticism, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blank talk pages in the Latin Wikipedia

Adam, please can you have a look at la:Vicipaedia:Taberna#Blank_talk_pages? There seems to be a problem. Thanks! --Roland2 06:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solved. --Roland2 11:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bots

Two new ones, Adam, if you don't mind:

Thanks!--Ioscius ^(talk) 19:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup in Toronto

Hi, I am organizing a new meetup in Toronto where it will be more convinent for everyone than the current one. Please provide suggestions and feedbacks on the talk page. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 15:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Kyiv

Hello,

I am trying to change the name of the page Kiev to Kyiv. Looking through the archives, I saw that you had contributed to a similar discussion in the past.

The current discussion is happening at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming

Please let us know what you think.

Thanks, Horlo 02:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandal problem

hello, i am Smithcool. i was contacted about a problem. a user named bursting left me this message on my talk page. i believe it needs immediate attention. i am telling you this because you are an admin. let me know what happens. Smithcool 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantium

Hi Adam! The maps are from the following books:

John Haldon's 'Byzantium - A history';
Michael Angold's 'The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204';
'The Times Atlas of the Medieval World'
Bryan Ward-Perkins' 'The fall of Rome and the end of civilisation'

Specifically, maps for the 8th and 9th centuries are from Haldon's book. Maps for the 11th and 12th centuries are based on both Angold's book and the Times Atlas of the Medieval World. Any maps showing Justinian's empire in the 6th century are derived from a map belonging to another user, so I cannot cite a specific source for them. Meanwhile, the map of the 4th century is derived from Bryan Ward Perkins' book 'The fall of Rome and the end of civilisation'.

As for the animated map, you are correct. I believe the map you are thinking of is here: [3]. The best people to ask about animated maps are Astrokey44, and Varana, who have both been of great help to me in my map endeavours.

I hope I have been of some help; good luck with your work on the Kingdom of Jerusalem. If there is anything else I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask. All the best, Bigdaddy1204 19:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Arsuf

Adam, could you look over this please. You are the only person here that I trust with Crusader issues. As you will see, the account of the battle has now been greatly expanded. I would welcome any comments or amendments. I am still something of a novice when it come to main page editing, so I would be grateful if you could 'Wikify' as necessary. I intend to ask Rockpocket for support with this also, and to nominate the page for DYK. Best wishes. Clio the Muse 05:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I would like to change the absurd figures in the battle box, but am not sure how to go about this. Clio the Muse 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it! Clio the Muse 03:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Hi! Can you please look at your Usertalk page in La.wikipedia? Thanks, ^{__ ABF __} ^{- - Talk - -} 08:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The threat

It is commendable that the information you added into the article (Fourth Crusade) is correct, but so is the REFERENCED (in the talkpage) and relevant info you removed, contained in the SINGLE EXPLAINATORY SENTENCE I added. I have become convinced of the following: You do not have the dedication required to thouroghly debate on this subject (the name of Zadar) you involved yourself in, and are thus prone to arrogantly dismissing information, people and, indeed entire cities and nations(!) as "irrelevant". I do believe your attitude expressed here is not customary with you, as debating to this extent about issues not considered important (by you) can frustrate anyone, but I will not stand still and allow you to force your irrationally and superficially formed oppinion here. I hope you will see your error and go back on your threat("the next person who changes it will be blocked, by me, much to my amusement. Adam Bishop 22:27, 20 August 2007 " and "the next person to change this will get a nice surprise from me!"). I also hope you realise that I must see what can be done about this, should you fail to do so. As I mentioned before, I do not mean any offence since I understand how the issue may seem irrelevant to an individual not personally involved, but I must remind you that you chose to get into this without a compromising attitude or the determination to truly explore the issue. DIREKTOR 23:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Devol

Treaty of Devol has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Name

There seem to be quite a few Bishops on wikipedia. ;) Billy Bishop 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venus figurines

I'm a new user, so please any faux pas. I have applauded something you wrote a couple of years ago on the 'Venus figurines' talk page. I hope you might take a look. I refer users to a newly published article concerning (amongst other things) the iconology of the Palaeolithic female figures and figurines - ie. concerning what they appear to represent. In the second half of the same article (this second half is as yet unpublished) the use of the names 'Goddess figures' and 'Goddess figurines' is justified. (Understandably, you may at present have difficulty imagining how such a thing could be justified.) Accordingly, one of my aims here is to get the name of the relevant page changed to 'Goddess figures/figurines'. Any advice you could give me would be very much appreciated. MagicCamel 18:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Adam, these are just the books I happen to have. The Grousset book is a 2006 re-edition, and seems to be quite relevant even now. I added a reference with the Encyclopedia Iranica article. Other sources welcome! Best regards. PHG 18:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, I actually had a question related to Franco-Mongol alliance as well, and I was advised by Ghirlandajo that you would be a good person to ask for assistance. In a nutshell: The info that is currently in the alliance article, is not matching up with my own sources on the Knights Templar. However, I'm trying to stay open to the possibility that there may be some gaps, since most of my books concentrate on the Templars, the Crusades, and the history of Islam -- I don't have anything that focuses strictly on the Mongols. Right now I'm trying to seek reliable sources that talk about the Mongol activities in the Holy Land in 1299. Do you have any suggestions there, so that I can stick with what's reliable, and avoid the pseudohistory stuff? Thanks, El on ka 20:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for statement

See ARBCOM, Dalmatia.Tx.--Giovanni Giove 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades, Kings and Beyond

Hey man, I've seen your name pop-up just about everywhere i've been editing, we seem to have a common interest in the period. Have you read for History academically or is it just a hobby?

I'm seriously thinking about tackling this Richard I article head on, if you'd like to suggest some things that should definitely survive that'd be great. Cheers mate --Tefalstar 12:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Cheers about the Henry II article, must be good if you like it. We should tackle a Crusade article sometime!

Hey man, just saw your comment on Henry II about the crusade link. Cheers, think i over looked it. Obviously he never went on Crusade in the end, and he turned down the throne, but it should still be mentioned. I'll add a sub-section during next week to tie up the lose ends.

Gotta do some Peter the Great stuff and then ill think about Richard I. The whole gay/not-gay debate seems like being the main stumbling block to getting a decent article up in a short space of time. Ta! --Tefalstar 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Toronto Meetup

Toronto Meetup

Next:	Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon March 23, 2019 at Art Gallery of Ontario
2018:	Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon March 24, 2018 at Art Gallery of Ontario

This box: view ‧ talk ‧ edit

Image:6th Earl of Mayo.jpg

Does this image look familiar at all? We're trying to find more information concerning its source and date of creation. Ugen64 (talk · contribs) knows it was originally uploaded several years ago, but isn't sure of the username. Thanks, --Jh12 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 08:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Request

I am user:PIO unlogged for technical problem and my request is for impossible agreement with ill-famed POV warrior DIREKTOR in Istrian exodus. DIREKTOR makes only disruption removing my integrations in edit warring with a lot of reverts against a dozen of other editors: you can control related hystory and discussion. I request block DIREKTOR for disruption and long edit warring as troll's manner: DIREKTOR is involved in many edit wars because he started with POV edits, you can read user talk:DIREKTOR#Istria. I reported him for 3RR violation; in alternative you can total protect article: umpteenth total protection caused by flamer DIREKTOR!!!! You can protect in version -14:09, 7 September 2007 151.33.95.134 (Talk) (15,196 bytes) (Undid revision 156270114 by DIREKTOR (talk)- against DIREKTOR's vandalism. Regards and best wishes. user:PIO, 00:17 8 September 2007

Raymond IV of Toulouse

Adam, there are TWO men named Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse. Go to Foundation for Medieval Genealogy to see for yourself. Two were born and died about a century apart, both were recognized as the fourth count. The first Raymond IV was a count for a short time and married Adelaide of Anjou; his son succeeded him as the Count of Toulouse, William III. If you're telling me it's not true, then why are you ignoring this genealogical evidence? I'm not involved with the people behind FMG, merely following the genealogical and historic links founded in FMG. I believe the second Raymond IV (1040/1041? - 1105) should be known as Raymond the FIFTH, but FMG stressed him as the FOURTH count in spite of another fourth count of Toulouse of the same name a century early. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundehul (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message and I understand. But for historic and encyclopedic purposes, there should not be a mix-up between the two on the account of their similar name and title in Wikipedia. How do we make it a disambiguation between the two? (Sorry, do not know how to tab this paragraph). Sundehul 18:39, 9 September 2007.

Re

Maybe the numbers are accurate, but he does not cite them! He refers, in general, some sources, which he adds in the article in an improper way. If he respects the fact that the article is FA, and he cites his edits, I'll have no reason to revert him. At least, this is my approach. I may well be wrong!--Yannismarou 08:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recueil des Historiens des Croisades

Thanks, and yes, I agree that it's a useful addition to Wikipedia. I know that I was often confused when I would see obscure citations to "RHC" or "RHC Doc. Arm." and I really had no idea what it meant! I also have to admit that I was completely unaware that I could go to that website and go and read the (primary) source documents for myself. So it's very satisfying to go and hear things from "the horse's mouth." Also very humbling, to read something that was written several hundred years ago! :) --El on ka 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can sympathize with that "hours in a library" feeling. I was in the St. Louis University Pius Library (one of the largest libraries in the area) earlier this week, surrounded by stacks of books on the Mongols and the Crusades and Syria and Jerusalem, checking sources on this alliance thing. BTW, I wanted to offer a semi-apology -- as you may have noticed, I've been sweeping through a bunch of Crusades articles on Wikipedia, tagging them as needing sources. I know that you worked on (or even created!) many of them, so I hope you're not taking any of the taggings personally. I'll be adding sources myself to many of them, but as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia can rapidly become a Scheherezade style of nesting tasks, where "I'll just fix this one thing" suddenly turns into a couple hours of work on side projects, and it's easy to lose track of the original writing job I was working on! ;) So it's often easier to just quickly tag and move on. BTW, do you ever use IMs? As I'm doing a lot of writing on the "Egypt & Middle East Middle Ages" articles too, it would be really nice to be able to chat informally with someone who's working on the same stuff. :) --El on ka 22:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William of Tyre

Hi Adam, would you known why William of Tyre is said in his article to have died in 1185, but is otherwise known to have commented on events in the 1260s? [4] There may be a discrepancy somewhere... PHG 09:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that people are getting the historian William of Tyre (1100s) confused with the historian Templar of Tyre (1300s)? --El on ka 09:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William's chronicle was continued in Latin and especially in French long after he died. Sometimes these are all known collectively as "William of Tyre", but usually with some qualifier ("continuators", "Rothelin", "Acre", "Ernoul", "Bernard", "Eracles", "Lyons", etc, depending on the version). The Medieval Sourcebook pages lumps them all together into one text, which is not quite right...I think the Templar of Tyre is actually a separate chronicle. Adam Bishop 15:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right about William of Tyre and the Templar of Tyre being different. Thank you. PHG 19:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SBS membership renewal request—Project in great need of contributors

The summer has passed (unless you live in the Southern Hemisphere), and for most people holidays are over. Therefore, it is time for work again. Not that work ever stops in Wikipedia, but I believe we can at last get over the stage when slow progress can be taken for granted. Like yourself, most members of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization have been away during most of the summer (and some of you have been away for much longer); this lack of contributors has almost led SBS activity to a standstill.

A couple of members have stayed, however, and things have greatly improved in the project. There is a renovated and functional main page; the talk page has organised archives and a dedicated page for archived proposals; the Guidelines page is in a very good shape and I am preparing a further set of guidelines to be proposed for adoption by the project and incorporation into the page; the Documentation page has been again updated and a potential restructuring is being planned; the Templates list is the operations centre for the ongoing removal of antiquated and redundant templates. The Offices page is the only one that has yet to be improved, but there is a proposal for that one as well. Even a new SBS navbox has been created and added to the project's pages, easing navigation between the different parts of the WikiProject, while shortcuts have been created for the three most basic pages.

And the project itself is not the only thing that has been improved; the headers system has been cleared up and rationalised during the last six months, and a new parameter system is being inserted into templates like s-new and s-vac in order to successfully adapt succession boxes to more tricky cases of succession without large, clumsy cells or redundant reasoning. S-hou has also been improved and /doc pages have been added to most of the headers' pages, as well as to many proper succession templates' ones.

Despite all these breakthroughs that have made SBS a better, more functional and more user-friendly WikiProject, things move excruciatingly slowly as far as the adoption of proposals and correction/improvement of succession boxes in the mainspace are concerned. As has been mentioned, this is due to the utter absence of all but two of its members. I completely understand that a few of them might be unwilling to resume work in SBS, and some of them might even have left Wikipedia altogether. However, we are certain that there are people intent to continue improving Wikipedia's succession boxes and helping others to do so as well. If you are one of them, please return. And even if you cannot help at the moment, but want to contribute at a later time, please let us know by renewing your membership. You can do that very easily by removing the asterisk next to your name in the member list in SBS's main page. The deadline is 31 October; members that do not renew their memberships until 23:59 of that day will be removed from the list, as these members will be assumed to have left the project for good.

SBS is a project highly capable of doing some serious work in Wikipedia. These potentials are seriously undermined by the unavailability of helpful hands. I hope you shall consider this message seriously before taking any decisions.

Thank you for your time. Waltham, The Duke of 14:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for catching that tiny detail :D. Cowman109^Talk 02:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!

Thanks a bunch Adam!Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 18:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again :).Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey There

As you may have noticed, the Richard I article hasn't had the "Henry II" treatment as of yet. You won't have noticed i'm drowning in other less interesting but more numerous pieces of work :P I will get round to it though, and ill need your views on how to handle the sexuality side as i mentioned.

Just one more thing which would be a great help, i was hoping to make some serious moves towards being an administrator over the next few months. Any tips on what looks good and what would get me prepared? Cheers mate --Tefalstar 18:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. if you ever want a hand with anything Medieval, then let me know :)

Kayqubad I

Please pardon the importune contact. I have noticed from your contribution history that you have some experience with Turkish historiography. Would you please take a look at the multiple move requests at Kayqubad I? The name alone is at stake. I know that naming controversies are not the most compelling of Wikipedia matters, but your contribution would be appreciated. Thank you, Aramgar 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Aramgar 22:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for your opinion

Hi Adam -- there's a controversy over the contributions of one PHG, concerning whether or not he's been making tendentious edits concerning a possible Mongol conquest/occupation of Jerusalem. From a glance at Mongol raids on Jerusalem, I don't see anything that sticks out as being a fringe theory -- but then I'm not a professional Medieval scholar. Since (IIRC) you are, would you kindly have a look & offer your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem? Much thanks. -- llywrch 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Now that I have taken the time to read the talk pages, I see that you know well about this dispute. And I understand well your frustration. However, I wish that you would speak as an authority on this matter -- it might bring it to some kind of constructive end. Those in the middle won't listen, but I suspect many of those around the edges would respect your comments. As for your current living situation, I don't know which is worse: moving -- or being without an Internet connection! -- llywrch 02:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's been too long since I've been without immediate access to my books for me to make a proper comparison between the two. And I say this with full knowledge that I've been able to make do without an Internet connection for 2-3 days, but without access to several of my favorite books I get very grumpy. -- llywrch 02:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post to WP:AN/I: ouch. Now I feel very insecure about my contributions to Ethiopian history, such as Tekle Giyorgis I of Ethiopia and 1868 Expedition to Abyssinia. Then again, I always feel like I'm making a mistake I'm unaware of whenever I work on an article. ;-) -- llywrch 03:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was hoping that you didn't have me in mind... Although a certain amount of insecurity can be a good thing in the writing of a Wikipedia article. -- llywrch 05:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your (Adam's) ANI post. Actually, you've got me wrong, I'd be in support of deleting the whole thing and starting fresh. :) As it is, I feel like I've been trying to put band-aids on a mud puddle. ;) Though, if we sent it to AfD, I'm not sure the community would agree on deleting, since there really is some good info there. Personally, I think the whole 150K of it could probably be condensed to about 20-30K of "Crusader-Mongol relations" or "Christian-Mongol relations". But getting that much stripped out would probably be a major fight. I'm up for it though, if you are? :) --El on ka 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De la conquete

Hi Adam, would you by any chance have access to the original text of Villehardouin's De la Conquête de Constantinople? I think it would be nice to have a small piece (say the first page or part of it) to put in the article. Something like the example in the Chronicle of Morea.--FocalPoint 20:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have helped very much, I copied it by hand, left parentheses out. Check in Villehardouin's De la Conquête de Constantinople. Thanks. Some other time I might get around in re-writing the article (or writing it in Βικιπαίδεια and copying it here - depending on the mood of the time :) ).--FocalPoint 09:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 08:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue I (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities 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 for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! -- Noetic Sage 19:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Bishops

Wow, that's quite a task you're engaging on. Good luck. Anyways, two "Scottish" bishops were suffragans of Trondheim after 1152, Sodor/the Isles/Man and Orkney; while Galloway was subject to York, a papal bull of Pope Celestine III, March 13, 1192, confirmed 9 Scottish dioceses as "Special daughters of the Roman see", like the bishoprics in Leon and like Kammin in Pommerania. Those dioceses, i.e. St Andrews, Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Moray, Dunblane, Brechin, Ross, Caithness, and Glasgow, adding Argyll when that see came into existence, had no metropolitan; the bishoprics north of the Forth had no actual history of being suffragans of York, though Glasgow did; the bull confirmed previous papal acknowledgments of the Scottish church's independence in 1176 and 1182 as well as the de facto situation. Galloway was subject to York both in theory and in practice until the Clementine-Urbanist schism left Galloway a "special daughter" too. Orkney and Sodor were (disputed) suffragans of York until the creation of the Trondheim archdiocese. Hope that helps. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mike's motto.

According to the St. Mike's website, St. Mike's Greek Motto (ΕΥΣΕΒΕΙΑ - ΜΟΥΣΙΚΗ - ΓΥΜΝΑΣΤΙΚΗ or Piety - music - gymnastics), derives from Pslam 118 (or 119 in some translation) - Teach me goodness, discipline and knowledge - which is the latin phrase you mentioned in the edit summary. If you look at it closely, both phrases have similar meanings. And since St. Mike's is a college affiliated with the Catholic Church, they would often interchange between Latin (the Church's official language) and Greek (one of the original languages of the Bible, the other being Hebrew). I just wanted to clarify this with you so that we could avoid an edit war. nat^tang 20:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of France cfd

Please comment here. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Why did you remove the reference I added to the Siege of Acre article? It was a perfectly valid ref. Please explain. -Icewedge 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize

Between December 14, 2005 and June 7, 2007, I vandalized Wikipedia under my previous username (YechielMan) and under various IP addresses and alternate accounts.

I recently reviewed the contribution logs of all the accounts and IP addresses that I can recall having used. My goal was to identify all of the intentionally harmful edits I caused, and to apologize to the individual users who reverted those edits, or warned me, or blocked me.

Hence, I apologize to you and to all of the following users:

Adam Bishop, Amarkov, Antandrus, AntiVandalBot, Bdj (Badlydrawnjeff), Conk 9, CanbekEsen, DLand, Downwards, Eagle 101, Ericbronder, Gogo Dodo, High on a tree, Hut 8.5, Interiot, Jayjg, Jrwallac, Kingboyk, Kuru, Noclip, Patrick Berry, PFHLai, PhantomS, Pollinator, Rachack, Ranma9617, Rx StrangeLove, SlimVirgin, Tfrogner, TommyBoy, Vary, Woohookitty, Zzuuzz, and some anonymous IPs. (I also reverted one edit myself after it went unnoticed for three weeks.)

Thank you for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia against everyone who has attacked it, including my old self.

If you wish to respond, please do so at my talk page.

Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Marathon GA sweeps review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have recently reviewed Battle of Marathon and have determined that it is in very good shape but need some assistance to remain a GA. I have put the article on hold for seven days until the issues on the talk page of the article are addressed. I wanted to mention it here since you have significantly edited the article in the past (determined by using WikiDashboard), and if interested, could assist in improving the article and help it to remain a GA. It currently has a few problems concerning inline citations. Additionally, I will be leaving messages on other WikiProjects and editors affiliated with the page to increase the number of participants assisting in the workload.

If you have any questions about what I've said here, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 20:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick one man

On Gerard de Ridefort's page it says there was writing that suggests he may have been "de Bideford", and so would have been English. Have you heard about that anywhere else because i can't find anything in my stuff. I know for a fact several Masters recruited from England and traveled it but this is a new one on me. Just fancied re-writing the article so thought i'd see if it rung any bells with you.

No worries if it doesn't. Ta mate :) --Tefalstar 19:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2009

Support TORONTO in its bid to become the host city of WIKIMANIA 2009 Visit m:Wikimania 2009/Toronto for TORONTO's MetaWiki page and help build a strong bid.
Toronto Candidate City for Wikimania 2009

Richmond Hill Page

Hi Adam,

I am new to Wikipedia and I just noticed that you removed what I added to the Richmond Hill page. The information I added about People Plan Richmond Hill is important for residents of the area, as it pertains to future development of the Town and how they can be involved. The People plan project is quite a large undertaking and hence, we have tried to reach out to the community in many new and innovative ways. It would be much apprecited if the information could remain on the page for the duration of the project. Please feel free to respond to this message. And please excuse me if I have broken any Wikipedia rules or unwritten rules. I assure you it was unintentional.

Thanks very much!Trh canada 20:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bots on la.wp

Hi Adam, could you please grant bot status to la:Usor:VolkovBot and to la:Usor:AlleborgoBot? Thanks! --UV 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --UV 16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UV (talk • contribs)

Partitio

Hi Adam, a good friend and I in Βικιπαίδεια are giving a face lift in the greek version of Duchy of Naxos and Marco Sanudo. We are missing, however, information from the "Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae". Apparently there is a reference:

Antonio Carile, Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae, Studi Veneziani 7(1965) pp. 125-305

only we do not have any easy access to Studi Veneziani. Would you happen to have it handy via JSTOR or something similar? Would you happen to know if there is there any other place where we could find the partitio deal? Web search could not help much and two of us searched for it without success (so it was not a sloppy 2 min search). A discussion in Greek in el:Συζήτηση:Δουκάτο της Νάξου contains some other references too. Thanks. --FocalPoint 20:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever come across it, there are a few simple questions:

Did the text of the treaty survive until today?
Is there a list about territories given to Venetians and to Crusaders?
To whom were Naxos and the Aegean islands given?

Thanks again.--FocalPoint 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue II (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities 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 for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 19:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 12:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you very much for your assistance at the RfC a couple months ago. We are still having a bit of a stalemate at the article though, so if you have time, I was wondering if you could offer another opinion? I have created a subpage in my userspace where I have rewritten the article from top to bottom, shrinking it down from 167K to a little less than 70K, removing some of the unreliable sources and less relevant information, splitting other sections out to more appropriate articles, and most importantly, trying to smooth out the writing so as not to give undue weight to certain POVs. My rewritten version of the article is currently at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. I've announced it at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article rewrite, but because this is such an obscure subject, it's really been very difficult to prove that there is consensus for the new version. If you have a few minutes, could you please look over the rewrite, and offer an opinion on it? I am very open to making changes, but I'm in a situation where I basically have one editor (PHG) who keeps saying "no," and no one else seems to want to comment and help break the stalemate. Any assistance appreciated, El on ka 17:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian church hierarchy

Palermo was made an archdiocese at the time of Roger II's coronation in 1130. Its suffragans were Agrigento, Syracuse, and something else... Syracuse went to Monreale when it was made an archdiocese in 1188. When Messina was made an archdiocese (1166?), the sees of Cefalù and Lipari-Patti were created and made suffragans of Messina, while Catania(?) was placed under it as well. This is all very sketchy, from memory. (And see Byzantius, Archbishop of Bari.) The relevant sources I use are as follows:

Houben, Hubert (trans. G. A. Loud and D. Milburn). Roger II of Sicily: Ruler between East and West. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Matthew, Donald. The Norman Kingdom of Sicily. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Chalandon, Ferdinand. Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicilie. Paris: 1907.
Gay, Jules. L'Italie méridionale et l'empire Byzantin: Livre II. New York: Burt Franklin, 1904.

I know Houben and Matthew have some discussion of ecclesiastics. Chalandon maybe and I think Gay will discuss the church in the Greek provinces. Norwich is interesting narrative, but that's not as useful for this type of work. Also, there is a good discussion of the Latin church in Greece in Kenneth M. Setton, Catalan Domination of Athens 1311–1380, revised edition (London: Variorum, 1975). Srnec 04:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi, can I please have some assistance with a user who is breaking Wikipedia:Civility & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? I'm really at a loss with how to deal with User:Fullstop, on the Mithraic Mysteries page. He is insisting on editing out alternative theories about a contraversial subject, and is being disruptive. The final staw came when he left an insulting and patronizing message on my talk page, which I have since removed(it's the last edit by another user on the talk page though, so it's easy to find). Any help you can provide(or if you can point me in the direction of an admin who can) would be great. Thanks. Fennessy 21:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I'm sorry to drag you into this,... but since Fennessy approached you (which suggests that he trusts you), it seems like a good idea to approach you as well because this way Fennessy wouldn't have reason to feel disadvantaged.

My idea is this: could you try to figure out what Fennessy's rationale for his/her edits are? I'm almost positive that he's/she's only a little muddled about something, and I think a fireside chat should do the trick.

I've tried to figure out his/her line of reasoning before, but to no avail. He's pre-supposing something, but won't answer direct questions (even if posed repeatedly) and doesn't otherwise volunteer any information from which I might be able to infer what it is that he has confused. And, the sources Fennessy cites (even the non-RS "new-age" one) don't contradict what was stated in the RS/authority/tertiary source statement that he OR-ified. Ergo, I have no idea what "alternative theories" about what "contraversial (sic) subject" he's on about. His edits didn't provide any alternate theories; they just weasel-ified a standing statement attributed to one RS source and then split that one statement into two, attributing the first/weasely two-thirds to his sources, and the remainder to the standing source. ;)

I already filed a de-escalation request at AN/I, but it didn't get a response.

I don't think full mediation is possible since Fennessy (or any other editor) can't be compelled to care about reliability and in any case a mediator would probably not take too kindly to having to play mentor (sorry for putting you in that chair).

Thanks -- Fullstop 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again with attempting to be patronizing. I thought that old Mithras talk page had disappeared, but it does illustrate how User:Fullstop talks around in circles & resorts to ad hominems & other personal attacks. The specific issue with the current Mithraic Mysteries article is that you are excluding mention to the devotees of the cult potentially worshipping Mithra. Encyclopedia britannica seems to have no problem with that being said[5], so why should you? You should probably post any replies you might have to this on the Mithraic Mysteries talk page so you don't hog Adam's talk page. And whats more, if you do reply you should carefully consider what your saying, it seems even User:Dbachmann is becoming tried of your long-winded nonsense.[6](see the "historicity" topic)

By the way I'm male, just to clear that up. Fennessy 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were actually being objective and had – as common decency demands – actually provided an objective rationale for your edit/revert, then I could indeed discuss it in a rational fashion. Instead, you have torn down lines of communication while simultaneously addressing me on a visceral plane (and continuing to do so).

The issue at hand is not the substance of your edits, but your execution of them.

Your edit/revert at Mithraic mysteries does not add anything to what already stood there. Instead, #1) it turns an unambiguous "is" statement by an authority into a weasely one with "maybe"s; #2) it then interpolates a non-RS "new-age" source into the middle of a previously coherent sentence set. My revert – as described in my edit comment and in the follow-up comment to your take page – addresses these two issues.
Then, instead of acknowledging the practical aspects I described or providing any other explanation that might possibly be helpful, you re-revert only because my revert was (supposedly) "unwarranted" and my explanation "unnecessary". You also claim npov-ization, but instead of actually following npov policy and adding a new position with proper description, you a) mangle the existing article b) refuse to explain yourself c) re-revert without valid explanation d) tear down lines of communication e) accuse me of making personal attacks and what not. This is not npov-ization. Its mpov-ization.
Incidentally,... for a reliable, authoritative, peer-reviewed, tertiary source, npov-ization can only occur with another reliable, authoritative, peer-reviewed source. The subject matter must also be the same (cf. next point).

In addition to a lot of insolent polemic best left unaddressed, your last comment (above) revealed that you have seriously confused two different understandings of the term 'Mithraism'. Coupled with another matter, this confusion has led you to draw wrong conclusions.
I am – in principle – willing to explain, but I'm not going to do so unless I get some sign that you are ready to be taken seriously. One way to do that would be for you post a comment - appropriately phrased to initiate rational discourse - to my talk page.

-- Fullstop 01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious

Why 1220? Charles Matthews 09:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly has come a long way. Truth be told, it seems a bit too ambitious now. As one of the first edtors of the leaders by year series, I know that the original intent was to list only the highest leaders (heads of gov't and state, rather than governors, nobles, etc.). I think listing every bishop might be too much, at least for that page, particularly as so many names are not listed, and so many offices are red links. It also is a pretty obvious display of Wikipedia's systemic bias, as there are several hundred entries for Christianity, but two for Islam. Its depth is also a bit too great to spread out over the rest of the 13th century and beyond. I've been in favor of a shallower but wider approach, covering more years in less detail. The fact that we have every detail about 1220 but nothing about 1219 or 1221 seems less useful than having, say, just the popes, patriachs, and other religious heads for the entire century. While I think lists of all bishops is the sort of thing that certainly should be included in Wikipedia, I'm not so sure it belongs in the leaders page. Tht being said, I'm very impressed with the amount of work that went into it. Do you intend to contiue with other years? -R. fiend 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a specific, I've just redirected Bishop of Entrevaux to Ancient Diocese of Glandèves, which must be right, I think. (The coincidence of dioceses, not what the current name was.) On years, 1500 would be very interesting. Charles Matthews 19:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the article content as you mentioned seems like a very good idea. R. fiend 19:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guelphs and Ghibellines

Why did you restore vandalism? AnonMoos (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Emperor > Byzantine line > Trastamara line > Holy Roman Empire?

When this happened, did Charles V will the Imperial title to his brother Ferdinand, in order to strengthen the legitimacy of the title "Holy Roman Emperor", or did it truly settle in the list of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second battle of Dorylaeum

Hi Adam. Can i create a separate stub from the 'Second battle of Dorylaeum' section of the Battle of Dorylaeum article? Lysandros (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for user/user page deletion

Hi! I have posted the request for an account deletion on the latin wikipedia Can you delete my account or my user page, please? Thanks very much :)

- Yeah!! :D Can you delete this too? --Thanks 1000! ;) (I've removed the page link)

Hey man

Just a few quickies. I'm putting the Monarchy infoboxes up on the Kings and Queens of Jerusalem's pages all this week, as I'm sure you've noticed. Before Baldwin III, was the royal house Rethel? Because I don't have a clue before it became Plantagenet.

Also, if you know about getting images for some of the blank Monarchy boxes that would be great, its not really something i feel confident about doing.

Thanks in advance, regards --Tefalstar (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. How interesting is this claim of Frankish/Byzantine dealings in China. Seriously news to me!

Yeah thats what I was thinking, cheers man

--Tefalstar (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you came to my aid over the Assassins Creed thing. Flipping guy writing trivia all over my article haha. Nice one man :)

--Tefalstar (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Hill

Thanks Adam - actually, the article is still in kind of lousy shape - too long, poor focus - I'm just gathering facts for the moment. If you're interested in Richmond Hill and related articles, or can do other relevant stuff (like take pictures locally) I'd love to collaborate with you on the subject. Cheers, Wily D 03:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue III (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities 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 for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! Noetic Sage 19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galla Placidia and Justa Grata Honoria images

Hi Adam, I was wondering if you'd be the man to settle an issue that's cropped up with regard to the images at Galla Placidia and Justa Grata Honoria. They both derive from a glass medallion which depicts Galla, Honoria and Valentinian (at Commmons here [7]. I've been talking to user:FilipeS about it; the consensus seems to be that the images are the wrong way round - Galla is the woman with the pearls (see eg at [8]; does anyone know for sure which is which? Djnjwd 21:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 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 00:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manuscripts online

Adam, I was given your name by User:Dsmdgold, who said that you and Wetman had been active in articles about manuscripts in the past. I recently found this page and thought you might be interested -- I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to know which, if any, of these manuscript images are worth uploading, but I thought you might. I'd be happy to upload some of the images if you can point me at the right ones. I'll also leave this note for Wetman. Thanks; I hope this is useful. Mike Christie (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mostly I work on Anglo-Saxon kings -- I spend most of my time trying to bring one or other of them up to FA. In the process I run into things like the Ismere Diploma, and when I do I try to create an appropriate article. There's no article for Liber Wignornensis right now, for example: I don't have any good references for that, but it does look like that site has some images that could be relevant. So it's not so much that I am after any particular manuscript; it's more that I couldn't identify these well enough to create appropriate articles. Of course old ms images are always public domain. Mike Christie (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First and Second Crusades

Hi, we're discussing about reviewing these two articles in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Can you please tell us your idea.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margraves/Marquis/Marquesses? of Montferrat

Considering your interest in Conrad I of Jerusalem (as he is universally called), perhaps you would be interested in the discussion I have had with Michael Sanders concerning his renaming of the rulers of Montferrat from "[Name] [Ordinal] of Montferrat" to "[Name] [Ordinal], Marquess of Montferrat". I have opened a discussion at Talk:Rulers of Montferrat. Srnec (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List_of_titles_and_honours_of_the_Spanish_Crown#Proof_of_Byzantine_inheritance

A user has reverted against consensus. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Dioceses

Apologies for the trouble. I'm trying to fix most of the categories, still have Italy, France and Germany left to do. Most of the moves are fine, but some have prior issues.Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sappho

Your input would be appreciated on the article Sappho and the debate on its Talk page. I am trying to add a Music section to this article since it is an important part of Sappho's life. Presently there is nothing mentioned as her being associated with music. I put in my edits yesterday on a complete section about Music, however they have been totally removed as being inappropriate. In the Talk page I have given my reasons why I believe these are appropriate with many references showing each point of the 10 sentences - written in bold. Any additions, improvements, or comments would be helpful. Thanks.--Doug ^talk 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suo moto/motu

I have left a message. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zingostar

Hey there, this is just a request that you look into the reason why you've blocked this user seeing as this user has contacted me on Simple English Wikipedia, where a very large portion of this user's edits have been beneficial to the Wikipedia. I do have to say that even though his spelling isn't as good as most of the other English users on here, I feel as if you might have incorrectly blocked this user. Thanks Razorflame (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though he has been abusive in the past, this user has made a dramatic change over on the Simple English Wikipedia. See Sinbad if you don't believe me. Razorflame (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saladin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Personally, I agree with you 100% and support your edit but I'm sure you agree that being right is not a reason to violate 3RR. It would be different if the Iraqi-Kurdish edit would be vandalism, but the user seems to be editing in good faith, thought I disagree with him. I'm well aware that you're an administrator (and a good administrator in my experience) but, to the best of my knowledge, administrators are no more allowed to violate 3RR than other users. As I've warned Mussav over his edit, it would be unfair not to give the same warning to you. Cheers! JdeJ (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Moerbeke's location in 1260's

Hello – I possibly shouldn’t be contacting you this way, as I have been indefinitely blocked, but hope you will excuse this as the reason for placing this message has absolutely nothing to do with the block. The reason is the excellent series of articles you have written around the 1260’s period and the conflicts between the Latin and Byzantine empire. I got hold of a few books on the subject but this period is not well covered by any authors. My interest is in a translator called William of Moerbeke who is supposed to have worked in Thebes, then Nicea, around 1259-60. I am puzzled about how he could have been there at all, given that the whole area was a great battlefield at the time. In particular, how he could have been in Nicea at the time, as it was ‘enemy territory’ for a Latin, or so I assume. Any help – e.g. references, much appreciated. The only way to contact me is email – d3uckner AT btinternet.com. Many thanks, and congratulations again on the work you have done in this area. I am relying extensively on them for background to a paper I am writing.

--86.142.235.71 (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue IV (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities 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 for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongols etc...

Hi Adam, thank you for your message. I indeed have no pretense to be a historian, and I have great respect for those who indeed are. I am just a history-hobbyist who takes great pleasure in contributing to Wikipedia on subjects which are otherwise poorly-treated, with a bias towards the history of cultural interactions (other examples would be the Indo-Greeks, the Boshin War, or Hasekura Tsunenaga). I consider my only legitimacy in the fact that I take everything I write on Wikipedia from reputable published material, and take great care to reference and quote as much as possible. I found that this is also generally Wikipedia's stance: "all significant views ought to be mentionned", and this is why I am very reluctant when one or a few Wikipedians seem to wish to eliminate a source on some other basis. I appreciate your communication on this and hope we can find some common ground on the basis of Wikipedia's editorial principles. Regards. PHG (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam. Thank you for your message. We are not talking here about the view of "everyone who has ever written a book about a subject", but the modern view of Alain Demurger, one of the leading French historians of the Templars and the Crusades, who states, probably for good reasons, that Bohemond VI was in Baghdad in 1258. I find it hard to just dismiss it because I am "not a historian". His view is significant, because he is a very significant author on the subject. At the very least he has the right to be mentioned singly for his claim "According to Alain Demurger..." don't you think? It seems to me it fully complies with Wikipedia's "non-negotiable" policy of mentionning all significant views. Regards. PHG (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam. You seem to be having issues with Wikipedia's approach to article writing in general ("It is the very root of the problems with these Mongol alliance articles, and perhaps all of Wikipedia's problems in general."), but that's beyond me. I understand that, as an historian, you might wish to discriminate more strongly between sources and probably favour a given thesis over another. As most of us are amateurs however, Wikipedia takes a different approach, which I respect profoundly: "Mention all significant views. This is non-negotiable". In short, all significant secondary sources should be mentioned and balanced. I agree it might be a weakness of Wikipedia from a scholarly standpoint, but I also think it is a strength: all significant information can thus be shared, and the burden is on the reader to select which view he wants to favour or not, but, as far as I know, it is not our role to make an arbitrage between significant, reputable, sources. Regards. PHG (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam. What is "relevant and accurate" for our purpose is any material published by reputable sources. It is certainly not the job of Wikipedia editors, whom we know nothing about and have no formal credentials, to judge which reputable and published historians should be mentionned and which should not. All significant opinions from published reputable sources have the right to be represented, and should be presented in a balanced manner. Wikipedia:NPOV is very clear about that. PHG (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam. I was looking by chance at your "Rants" hereunder. Your statement that you are "not a professional or a specialist either (not yet!)"... puzzles me. Does it imply that you are still a school student, presumably of History? Or would you be an enlightened amateur with views to become a History specialist? I would appreciate if you could share some information on this. Regards. PHG (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your Rant

I just saw your essay, & noticed that you omitted to say which White House was burned by you Northerners; someone not as knowledgeable about history as you or I might think this happened in Greenland, Mexico, British Columbia or some other less familiar location. ;) Hope you have a Happy New Year. -- llywrch (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 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) 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Turkish phrases

An editor has nominated List of Turkish phrases, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish phrases and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who was first?

Not sure when you'll get chance to reply, but no worries. We both no the famous picture of Bohemond climbing the walls of Antioch, which we have on several articles. Well in some places that says it shows him watching his troops scaling the walls, whereas other captions say it is actually Bohemond. The books i have with me are Tyerman and Madden, neither is conclusive. I would like to standardise the captions, and was wondering if you have any clues, because it will be a while until im back with all my resources. Cheers man, --Tefalstar (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

List of religious leaders in 1220: you have both bishop of Nuoro and bishop of Galtelli. It's a trifle murky, but I guess that these are two names for the same guy. I'd be interested to learn anything saying otherwise. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Þingalið

Hello Adam. Still around or has real life taken over? I can't think of anyone else to ask. You're a sensible bloke, can you have a look at Þingalið. It seems like a great steaming pile of cobblers to me, but perhaps I'm being unfair. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Wishing you and yours all the very best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Just wanted to congratulate you on your new son. Things must be pretty busy for you now -- I hope you'll have time again, at some point, to continue the good work you do here. I've always enjoyed reading your contributions. Best, Kafka Liz (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, congratulations on the birth of your son! Your gain is Wikipedia's loss, as any remnants of your free time will now go out the window. ;) But it is a joyous gain for you, and I wish you the best! El on ka 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mamluks

Hi Adam and congratulations and happy new year. I wrote you something here about Mamluks : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mamluk Regards Samsam22 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pergola

Another one. I'm not convinced there ever was a free-standing diocese of Pergola. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curse words

excuse me take a look at the disscusion page of hosni mmubarak and u will find curse words

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.61 (talk • contribs)

Possible edit warring on project article

There seems to be some issues going on over on the article : Military history of African Americans, in particularly in the section Military history of African Americans#Confederate States Army. Could you take a look at the article's edit history as well as the discussion, Talk:Military history of African Americans, and possibly give some input? Thanks. Sf46 (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect 'Screaming Lord Sutch'

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 'Screaming Lord Sutch', by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 'Screaming Lord Sutch' is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 'Screaming Lord Sutch', 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) 01:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

botflag

Hey Adam, could you grant a flag to la:Usor:BodhisattvaBot? Thanks!--Ioscius ^(talk) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also to w:la:usor:Alexbot, which has flooded the nuper mutata. Thanks, Harris Morgan 23:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Medieval translations

I'm in a fix. I've written an article about medieval translations in my userspace, as we discussed awhile ago at the humanities reference desk awhile ago that information on the subject was needed. I have no idea where to put it, though, or what to call the article. Wrad (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Propriety

Hello, Adam. Within articles Philip the Good and Arthur III, Duke of Brittany, I see that you believe the cultural referencing of these respective articles as being nothing less than meaningless. Now, as the right course of action would be to restore the cultural referencing section within these articles, you, of course, will undo my revision based upon impulse -- this is not something that I wish to continue. I see that we both agree on the fact that Wikipedia itself is quite pathetic in like manner, but referencing of culture is a category that is obviously entirely acceptable within this society, and thus their is no rational reason as to why it should be removed. The only controversial rationale behind this respective section is whether an image portrayed in video game culture should be provided, and User:Angusmclellan consisted on solely removing its representing image, but has chosen to remove entire categories just because he is lazy and wishes to resolve matters in the most easy manner employable. This is the only reasoning behind why I revisioned his edits in the past, so please do not reciprocate his actions irrationally. If we are to both come to a resolved conclusion to these circumstances, I ask that the section remains--as it justifiably should--and that you will allow me to expand its cultural referencing, so that the representing image possesses entire evidence that it is appropriate to the article. As this is the best possible solution, I ask whether you can cooperate with my demand and allow the article its needed propriety. User:Exiled Ambition January 24 2008 (EST)

"New content" at Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Adam. I saw your following comment at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance: "That's how it works with PHG. I guess no one said anything because it wasn't surprising. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)". However, I have shown that the claim that I adding "49 new paragraphs" to the article as I was reinstating the full version is totally false. I would appreciate if you could rescind your comment here: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Why is the "longer version" get even longer?. Best regards. PHG (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hijacking this thread... thanks for the offer on the journals. I may take you up on that at some point. Luckily, University of Illinois isn't that far, it's just a case of getting off my lazy behind and driving there. In the cold. So you see why I haven't gone yet. I'm a lazy bum! Ealdgyth | Talk 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The episcopal see of Kołobrzeg

Thank you very much for your message. Yes, it's true that the episcopal see was established in Kołobrzeg as suffragan of the metropolitan see of Gniezno in 1000, with Reinbern as its bishop. However, the see existed only few years, because ca. 1007 Poland lost control over the whole Pommern due to pagan uprising, and bishop Reinber fled to Poland and never returned to Kolberg. The Catholic Encyclopedia stayed that it's even doubtful wheather Reinbern ever resided in Kolberg (it's seems to radical statement, because his missionary activity in Pommern is described by Thietmar of Merseburg). Reinbern then became chaplain of Polish princess who married Duke of Kiev Świętopełk and died in Kiev in 1015. He had no successors in the see of Kolberg. Pommern remained strong center of pagan cult until Duke of Poland Bolesław III reconquered it in 1120s. The new episcopal see for that region was established in Wolin (1140) and later (1176) transferred to Kamień. It became directly subjected to the Holy See, although both Magdeburg and Gniezno had pretensions to the metropolitan jurisdiction over it. See more on the subject:

Wędzki A., Reinbern, Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich, t. 4, 1970
Historical geography of Poland
Paweł Jasienica "Polska Piastów", Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, Warszawa 1979

CarlosPn (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2008 (CET)

Concerning the article List of religious leaders in 1220, which seems to be almost entirely of your autorship, I'd like to ask you about the source for years of serving of Obertus, bishop of Albenga. According to Encyclopedia Britannica], Innocentius IV papa, Sinibaldo dei Fieschi. Leben und Werk, eine Einführ ung and "Essai de liste générale des cardinaux. Les cardinaux du XIIIè siècle". Annuaire Pontifical Catholique 1929, p. 117, Sinibaldo Fieschi, future Pope Innocent IV, was elected bishop of Albenga in 1225, which seems to contradict tha data in the article that Oberto occupied that see from 1217 until 1230. I have not found any single catalog of the bishops of Albenga in Internet, so I'm not able to verify it. What could you say about it? Thnx for any information about it. Best regards CarlosPn (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (CET)

A request

Hi Adam. I would be pleased to know your thoughts on this RFAR: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance, specifically if you think it should be accepted or not. If you would like to make a statement on that page that would be appreciated, or you may contact me via email or on this page or my talk page. Regards, Paul August ☎ 18:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 23:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbots

For when you're ready for them, I just got in

Smith, David M.; London, Vera C. M. (2001). The Heads of Religious Houses, England and Wales II. 1216-1377. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80271-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Knowles, David (2001). The Heads of Religious Houses, England and Wales, 940-1216 (Second Edition ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80452-3. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

After I quit drooling on them, I might be inclined to share. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue V (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities 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 for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 22:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Battle of Fariskur

Hi Adam , I left a message for you : Talk:Battle of Fariskur - regards Samsam22 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon

Would you like to read S.D. Goitein's complete 1988 English translation of the letter? I feel it is very important to understanding the aftermath of the first Crusade. If you have an email on file, I can send you scans of the pages, or I can just give you a good citation. It's up to you. Let me know if you are interested. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Here are some book scans that present the letter. I have included the appropriate notes as well. I figure this will save you a trip to the library...

--Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names

I agree with you , anyway Chapultepec suggested this form , ok now if you like, go to all articles of Mamluks and do same . only if you like and have time of course. Thank you.Samsam22 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we did that is that because most of names were not correct on Wikipeadia and appear in different ways here and there. this form however will let readers think that all sultans were named al-Malik.Samsam22 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep it as simple as possible for the English reader. The important thing is that he be able to distinguish between the names which sometimes look same as they are in facts titles not names. Take the two Baibars' the real thing that distiguishes their names are the words al-Bunduqdari and "al-Jashnakir". some one used on article he created the name "Khalil" only for al-Ashraf Khalil. Actually the word " al-Ashraf" distinguishes this Sultan from all the common Khalil's as that name is very common. I think we keep it simple and names should be same on all pages. Regards Samsam22 (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiedis

Hi AdamBishop: You noted on the Ref Desk Humanities that Kiedis lost his virginity to a prostitute. I have no idea if this is true or not, but I couldn't find "prostitute" or even "hooker" in his Wiki bio. (I find the subject matter tedious in the extreme, so I might not have read the text carefully enough.) If there isn't a reference there, could we have one or could you delete the answer for BLP reasons? Thanks ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Crusade

Adam, I have been approached by a user concerned with the quality of the article on the Children's Crusade. Quite frankly, I have neither the time, nor the necessary expertise, to give the matter any serious attention. I see from the editing history that you have been involved with this at several points, and wonder if you perceived any major problems that need to be addressed? As I have said before, you are the one person here that I trust on Crusading matters. Best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism

Hi,

I've partially reverted your change to cannibalism - I'd say the page is better off with the source directly embedded, rather than just a link to the wikipage. However, the wikipage for the Siege of Ma'arrat al-Numan is a much better choice than just that to Ma'arrat al-Numan, so I've included that change. Thanks, WLU (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a large number of things I'd like to do when I get the time. I should probably start by not watchlisting the ones peripheral to it...like cannibalism. Though I think the link to the wikipage is valuable, a reference seems like a good idea too - is there a better one on the Seige page that could replace Maalouf? I tried to evaluate the reliability of the publisher, but it seems to have changed hands - now it's Random House, but in '84 it was something else. Anyway, if you're happy, I'm happy, thanks for the note. WLU (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I strikethrough?

If you're bothered that I mentioned you, I'll retract. Durova^Charge! 12:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Hey Adam Bishop, I'm attempting to encourage editors to come to this site who are interested in editing a wiki solely dedicated to the Crusades. Similar Wikia projects, like Wookieepedia, Coenbrothers, etc. have added links to their homepages for editors who are looking for something in addition to their work here at Wikipedia—it is hardly spam by adding those links, in my opinion. Wookieepedia started with only Wikipedia content, and now one would be hard pressed to find Wikipedia content there because editors were attracted there and started editing, thus making the site into what it is today. I used some material from Wikipedia as a starting off point, mainly because a) The Crusades Wiki to very new, and I'm trying to get the basis covered and, b) to encourage users to stop by and help, and to start editing the articles that I have started there; but hey, if you feel the need to, revert my edits, by all means :) You won't find me adding them again if you chose to remove them. That being said, from looking at your contributions, the Crusades seem to be an area of interest for you. If you would ever like to help out, I'd be more than happy to you have you around, not only to have you editing, but to have someone of your caliber and knowledge around :) I hope all is well. Cheers, Greyman (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's strange. When I got your message, I did a lookupcontribs on the nick Adam Bishop throughout Wikia and I didn't get any hits. Wikia has a shared database throughout all of its sites, so if someone registered User:Adam Bishop on one Wikia, then they own it, unfortunately—but, because I didn't get any hits when I did my search, I have a feeling that it may have been a mistake on the server side or something. My recommendation would be to try registering the nick (Adam Bishop) again, but try using this link (If you get the prompt "To help protect against automated password cracking…" make sure to enter the word it requires as you see it); if that doesn't work, then try registering another nick similar to your likings, such as AdamBishop, Adambishop, ABishop, etc. If you're set on having the nick Adam Bishop (trust me, I understand ;) I like having Greyman everywhere I edit too!), then let me know and I'll bring it up with Wikia Staff and see what they can help us out with. Also, I noticed you logged into the IRC channel for the Crusades Wiki. Sorry I missed you! I only noticed after the fact, because I was away. Anyways, let me know how you make out with registering a nickname on Wikia, and hopefully I'll see you around the Crusades Wiki and/or IRC channel sometime soon :) Have a good one, Greyman^(Paratus) 02:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think you've registered before, you should see an option/button on the login screen "email password". If you click that, it should send an email to you (if you registered an email that is) containing instructions on resetting your password. Hopefully that's all that needs to be done. Greyman^(Paratus) 02:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol, wow. That is bizarre, I've never heard of FF doing that before. I'm glad you were able to sign in :) I'm looking forward to seeing you around the project, and hopefully collaborating with each other on making something worthwhile. Greyman^(Paratus) 15:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man

Dont be too hard on urself lol. Keep it real Tourskin (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bots on la.wikipedia

Hi Adam, could you please give bot status to la:Usor:Idioma-bot and la:Usor:Purbo T? Thanks in advance! --la:Usor:UV 11:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --la:Usor:UV 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UV (talk • contribs)

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) 16:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

Sorry for the intrusion but could you look at this article? A series of anon IPs (same person based on comments) has added an unusual addition under popular culture with no attribution other than his/her viewpoint/OR. Of a more serious nature, the editor has also made inappropriate comments on the article's discussion page and my talk page. Thanks for your assistance. FWIW, I may be asking a number of admins for their review of the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Illustration

You're quite right about the use of later artwork for illustrative purposes (as opposed to editorial debate). Although personally I favor modern photographs of sites or contemporary art whenever possible. Then again, I'm the sort of person who goes to see a costume drama, sits in the back row, and mutters, No, 1830s dresses weren't floor length. They were ankle length! Durova^Charge! 09:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Silly Victorians, mixing barbutes with great helms...shocking! ;) Durova^Charge! 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bucentaur: Translation of Latin terms

Hi, there are two more Latin book titles that require translation. Hope you can help:

"De origin, situ et magistratibus urbis Venetae".
"Habiti d'hvomeni et donne venetiane: con la processione della serma. Signoria et altri particolari cioè trionfi feste cerimonie pvbliche della nobilissima città di Venetia".

Again, do respond on the article's talk page. Thanks very much. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emery Molyneux: Translation of Latin terms

Hi, thanks again for helping with the translation of the additional Latin texts in "Bucentaur". If you feel up to it, I also need help with Latin book titles and phrases over at "Emery Molyneux". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your translation help! I've updated the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, wonder if you're able to attempt a translation of "Thomas Caundish 18 Dec. 1587 hæc terra sub nostris oculis primum obtulit sub latitud 47 cujus seu admodum salubris Incolæ maturi ex parte proceri sunt gigantes et vasti magnitudinis" (italics in the original). I haven't been able to find any other errors in it. Do respond on the article's talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viam agnoscere veritatis

Please note that User:Elonka has been making up the story that there were actually 3 letters called "Viam agnoscere veritatis" when I only spoke about one. It turns out it is actually just her own interpretation,[9] and is not corroborated in any way by published sources. These letters are called by three different names by scholars (Dei Patris immensa (March 5, 1245) Cum non solum (13 March, 1245) Viam agnoscere veritatis (22 November, 1248)) and actually nobody says there were 3 Viam agnoscere veritatis except her. I am asking an apology from her, and ask you to consider this examplar case of wrongfull accusation.PHG (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Florentino floro

Dear Mr. Bishop I am contacting you about a user who I believe should be blocked. His name is User:Florentino floro. I know our community is supposed to assume good faith, but I have reason to believe he is criminally insane. You can totally shoot me down for this but I am concerned about letting him have access to the site. For more information, please look at these references: [10] [11] Thank you Skeletor 0 (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VI (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities 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 for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

British Museum and what is in there

Okay, casting about wildly, trying to find out a source for my one remaining issue with Gerard, Archbishop of York. (Yeah, I know. It's an Archbishop of York, I get bored with Archbishops of Canterbury sometimes) Down in the legacy section, someone put in that some of his verses are preserved in the British Museum. The ODNB doesn't mention such a thing. None of my other sources say it either. I hate to lose the information, since I'm pretty sure it's possible, but I have no idea how to verify the information. Any ideas/clues/pointers? Ealdgyth | Talk 03:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

longissimam agnoscere veritatis viam

Adam: I was working on a translation of Cum non solum but have been distracted from that recently. I will try to return to it over the weekend. As you probably noticed, I have posted only summaries of Viam agnoscere veritatis and the letter of Jacques de Molay. Once I had read through the Latin and satisfied myself that the letters were in fact “a whole lot of nothing,” I did not much feel like spending several days constructing translations that others might recognize as English. If you would like to translate Dei patris inmensa or raise Viam agnoscere veritatis from summary to actual translation, I do not mind. I would however like an opportunity to finish Cum non solum by myself. Would you mind if I sought help from you if I get stuck? Aramgar (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam: I did not have much time to work on Cum non solum this week. The work in progress is at User:Aramgar/viam agnoscere veritatis. Aramgar (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still interested, I am mostly finished with the translation of Cum non solum. The meaning was clear enough but the architecture sometimes difficult to follow: for example, in the last paragraph duximus leads to a string of participles and gerunds I am still struggling with. One thing I do not understand in the last bit: Memoratos autem fratres, quos etc. ut in proxima usque: alios misissemus. Do you have any idea what this means? Aramgar (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, thanks for the help and the link. I had not noticed that Dei patris inmensa and Cum non solum both ended "memoratos autem fratres..." As for the end, I was most of the way there, but the extra information certainly makes the architecture a little more apparent. My pride, however, compels me to say that I know the difference between a gerund and a gerundive; I would be a crap teacher if I did not.

Unrelated question: do you have administrative superpowers at la.wikipedia? the sort of powers that might be able to change a username? Aramgar (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)'[reply]

For the sake of consistency, would you please change my username on la.wikipedia Wayne's Quicky Lube to Aramgar. I remain highly skeptical of the utility of a Latin Wikipedia but have faith that Vicifons may at some point prove useful. Tibi gratias agimus. Aramgar (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam

Hi Adam. Just to say that I appreciated the sobriety, tone and balance of your contribution on the "Evidence" page of Arbcom (except of course for your recommendation about my editing of History articles :). I also just wanted to say that your impression about hoaxes (my Talk Page) is unfounded: I am actually very meticulous about sources, but since I write about quite original subjects, I guess the content may sometime sound rather incredible. Nobody has been able to confirm their claims of "invention of references" or whatever, because, very simply, there are no such cases. Regards, PHG (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

two requests at la.wikipedia

Hi Adam, please see la:Disputatio Usoris:Adam Episcopus#Username rename and la:Vicipaedia:Taberna#Request. Thanks! --UV 16:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Adam, you granted la:Usor:White Cat bot status. la:Usor:White Cat is, however, a human user. The account that should get bot status is la:Usor:Computatrum. Could you please revoke the bot status of la:Usor:White Cat and grant bot status to la:Usor:Computatrum instead? Thanks! --UV (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saladin's wife

You started a great story over at the humanities refdesk, and you have the book to hand, so please tell us more. What happened to the courtiers? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting Ismat ad-Din Khatun. I'm still curious about the courtiers...BrainyBabe (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades

Adam, Thanks for your kind words on my Crusader battle articles. Djmaschek (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chariot racing FAR

Chariot racing has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK - Battle of Shaizar (1111)

On 13 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Shaizar (1111), 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.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.

PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ismat ad-Din Khatun

On 14 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ismat ad-Din Khatun, 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) 01:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil

Hi Adam , how are you. Are you the one wrote the info in article of Khalil ? Please let me know. Regards. Samsam22 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi adam, ok I started to fix the article. Can you remember where you read about a conflict between Turkish Mamluks and Circassians during Khalil era ? and about conflict due to Ibn al-Salus because being an Arab ? and about Khalil called a new Alexander ? If you remember it might help to add ref for these points because I could not find till now though I checked so many sources. Thank you Samsam22 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Jerusalem

You say you'd like to bring the article to FA level. Most of this article lacks in-line citations, that's a basic problem with many FA candidates. I thought it would be OK to have a Britannica reference right at the beginning obviously not just for that specific fact. You insist it's not needed? Squash Racket (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are involved with this very much, and I don't want to waste your time. Obviously experts or at least educated adults don't need a reference for basic info in general, but everyone should quickly find a source for every single statement. See the FA Israel for example, almost every sentence has at least one in-line citation. Squash Racket (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've joined another WikiProject about two weeks ago and I don't even have enough time for that. Squash Racket (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Acre 1291

Hi Adam, Thank you for the ref. about the 2 points. We will talk about later when I reach that part =). In article Siege of Acre (1291) I deleted this sentence : "and grandson of Baybars who had started his life as a slave but rose to become Sultan of Egypt and Syria". and made notice about in the discussion. Regards Samsam22 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades Task Force

Kudos for setting this up. Long overdue. Would you mind if it's a joint Task Force with Milhist? (I'm one of the Milhist coordinators, by the way.) Shared tagging, transluded task force "home page" etc? It's an area many Milhist people will be interested in and it would be great to have it partially under the Milhist umbrella. This would help with tagging and asessing articles too. If there are no objections, Kirill can undertake the necessary technical stuff. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam , that is good. ok I will join. Regards Samsam22 (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some code to {{WPMA}} to generate the appropriate labels/categories, but I'm not entirely sure whether it's in the best place within the template. If you guys move forward on creating additional task forces, you'll probably want to look at what the best layout should be. I've stripped out some of the corresponding {{WPMILHIST}} code, since MA doesn't use our B-Class checklist scheme, but it would be easy enough to add it back in if that were desired.

As far as scope issues are concerned, anything relevant to the Crusades as conflicts will be in MILHIST anyways, but I suppose there may be some articles which are only relevant to the Crusades as a period that might not qualify. I would expect the latter group to be much smaller than the former, though.

Please don't hesitate to let me or one of the MILHIST coordinators know if there's any other assistance you need. :-) Kirill 12:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the image I picked for the task force icon—based entirely on it being the lead image in Crusades—isn't particularly recognizable at that small size. Would you happen to know of anything that would be suitably iconic for the topic but also easy to see when that small? Thanks! Kirill 13:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've played about a bit and come up with this image. May I trouble you to comment on Kirill's talk page please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Adam! Have you any thoughts please about the image proposed above? If you think it sucks, please say so :) I'm reluctant to make an SVG unless it will actually do the job. Your input would be much appreciated .... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. Unfortunately, I don't have the access to library resources I used to, but I'm happy to do odd jobs where I can. Speaking of which, I noticed last month that someone had put pictures of Bagras on Commons and added them to the article. Choess (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Austria

I added some possible source material to Talk:List of rulers of Austria. Since you created the article, and I assume you have some interest and/or expertise in the issue, I wanted to give you a heads-up on these. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG

Regarding your question Or is everyone trying to make him so frustrated that he leaves on his own? I haven't asked for any sanctions on PHG or locked horns with him in any way, and at his user talk today I suggested mentorship and offered to help him find someone suitable. Basically since arbitration I've kept an eye on his new image uploads at Wikipedia and Commons and there's been nothing problematic. I was very worried by a statement he made at the proposed decision talk shortly before the case closed, but his actual work in this regard has actually been quite encyclopedic and useful. Here's hoping the other areas improve too. Durova^Charge! 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you so much for your intervention against my block. I think your support was decisive, and I truely appreciate it. Best regards. PHG (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crusader Project

Thank you for asking me to help with the Crusader project. What would I have to do to be part of this project? This is not a YES, yet. I own R. C. Smail's Crusading Warfare 1097-119 and John Beeler's Warfare in Feudal Europe 730-1200. That's about the extent of my expertise. Are there any books that you would recommend? I'm not sure if I'm ready to buy all 3 of Runciman's volumes. Where on earth did you get the Fulcher translation (Battle of Yibneh)? Djmaschek (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ashraf Khalil

Hi Adam , I think the article of Al-Ashraf Khalil is ready. See whether you like to adjust something. Regards Samsam22 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing. I let typos, commas etc for you as it hard for me to do all at same time in a short time,as I am working with variuos resources in different languges and not only in English. thank you for telling me about what you need in English though I live in England for 35 years and had my university education there. When I use italics around Arabic names it is only to distiguish it from English names and text but it is not a problem whether it is italic or not. What was there was not a real article, I only added information after I was asked to help or the article will be removed. Adding details is also way to quote names connected with Al-Ashraf which is usful for readers searching for names. It was the battle of that Sultan and the main part of his history. The detail about the Siege of Acre does not describe the battle only but it reflects the relation of the Sultan to Emirs as it reflects his character as well. Of course we can copy/past this part and put on the article which you call " a separate article " I already wrote in the discussion page of that article that it does not talk about the siege of Ace as much as it talks about other things. If you notice under paragraph of Siege the following is written " Please help improve this section by expanding it."

Al-Ashraf Khalil recaptured Acre after 100 years of Franks occupation. that is correct as Crusaders captured Acre in 1191. True they stayed there longer in total but so were the Muslims before the start of the crusade. Thus we are refering to the last occupation of the Franks of the city which is correct and as it is quoted in books. We can add page numbers in notes. For who edited the book and when it was published there a special section for that called References. Of course it is good to use sourcebooks as it is the place where all the historians took their information from. As you notice I do not like to use information from internet because mostly such informations are copies from other sites which already full of mistakes even with names. On the other hand, as I like to be neutral in the matter of the crusades, I prefer to use source books as for some people in the west in particular the case is sensitive and often judged by racial and religion feelings. Maybe you noticed some tried to vandalize pages connected with crusades. I should tell you that this was one of reasons why I added names of persons and places in Arabic as well in the articles of the Battle of Al Mansurah and the Battle of Friskur so that exact information are given as some tried to change facts by playing with names. Of course I do not know your opinion about the crusades. But my opinion is that these wars did not bring any goodness to the world. That is why I like to write neutrally and subjectively about that the reader can judge it by himself. And after all Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia is a place to give information and not opinion and personal idiology of the writer. By the way , on this ground only I can help in the Crusades task force :) RegardsSamsam22 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , ok that makes me happy. I am putting now number of pages but that will take a few days because I have to search again for the pages. I must tell you this article was not an easy task. I think after ready we can c/p the part of the conquest of Acre in the page of the siege of Acre 1291 :) regards Samsam22 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:GreekChariotBig.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:GreekChariotBig.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades force/project

I am glad somebody set it up. I had wanted to feel some editors out about one for sometime and never got around to it. Today, I scaned over some crusade-related articles in greater detail than I ever had before. I saw some of the articles need only citaions while others are going to need to be completely rewritten as they are poorly done or, worse, patently incorrect. The project will attract more pairs of eyes on these articles and that will be a good thing, as we are seeing already.

I have the Runciman, but I find it quite dated and I prefer to use the more recent Oxford Press books when I can. I look forward to seeing where this is at in a few months, I think one of our first priorities needs to be to improve the current FAs. They would not survive a review as is. Best wishes, -- Secisek (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new admins at la.wikipedia

Hi Adam, we just elected three new admins on la.wikipedia: la:Vicipaedia:Petitio magistratus. Could you please grant them admin status? Thanks in advance! --UV 22:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for David Gruder

An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Gruder. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judge not that yee be judged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.0.134 (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evdokia

Evdokia is how you say it. the medieval greek thing was to justify why i would use evdokia since ancient greek would use eudokia. Since they used medieval greek at the time, evdokia is the proper spelling. Eudokia is her latinized name. She was byzantine so the greek tranlisteration should be used. Take for example Evdokia Kadi, who is representing Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008. I cant possibly understand why it would be eudocia since a k would make the same sound and a kappa is used in the greek spelling. I want to move it back, do you have any objections? Please see Romanization of Greek in the modern column.Grk1011 (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only moved 2 people of the medieval era, because they lived when Medieval Greek was used. Medieval Greek is similar to modern Greek, the reason i asked you to look at the romanization rules. People of ancient greece i do not move because their names were said like the way you suggested, however, its not the case with the others. Grk1011 (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They most certainly were named Evdokia, but i dont feel like arguing. The other name "Euphrosyne" is actually Efrosini. These names are still used today with the same spellings as they had 1000s of years ago. Its sort of like the difference between say the name Gregorios (Greek translit) and Gregorius (latin translit). I tend to prefer that greek related articles use the greek translit. Grk1011 (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, the accepted name in English excuse. You're right, its not like I'm proposing changing the name of the Athens article to Athena (the greek name) because it already has an established English equivalent. It just makes greeks mad to see how strange English versions of things can be. My family is from Euboia pronounced in English as eeeboeea, yet in greek as Evia. I didnt realize that there was already an English name so w/e, leave it. Grk1011 (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward I of England

I've just noticed the latest hack on the Edward I of England article and I'd like to know if you would consider putting a protection on the article against IP editing. Most of the rubbish placed there seems to originate with one-off IP access. In the past week someone has mistranslated the Royal motto and the latest effort introduces a factually inaccurate reference to Nazis.*

Further to the above; as I've said on the talk page, I know very little about the subject in detail. I try to compensate with a cautious approach ("Be bold!" be damned.) One thing I'm intrigued by is where the source for the Edict of Expulsion material is. Is a properly-provenanced copy of the thing in existence somewhere? And what about the Statute of Jewry? Retarius | Talk 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*PS: I don't think the date of posting is necessarily all that significant. Retarius | Talk 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here (sorry, Adam), I can't say I'm an expert on Edward (he's a bit outside my time frame of Anglo-Normans) but I went ahead and looked up his relations with the Jews in Prestwich's biography of Edward. He says that the Jews were expelled because Parliament required that in return for a grant of a (rather hefty - it raised over 100,000 pounds) tax. The edict was issued on July 18, 1290. Prestwich is citing, among other books, a book by Richardson English Jewry Under Angevin Kings and a book by Abrahams The Expulsion of the Jews from England which is available in full text at Google Books. I'm not sure if the edict itself is extant, but those two books should get you started. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, thanks for protecting the article, I'll have a search for the Edicts. Ealdgyth, thankyou for the references, they may be useful sources for the article generally as well as the Edicts section. Retarius | Talk 04:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Acre

On 3 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Council of Acre, 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) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request at la.wikipedia

Hello Adam, I left a request on your la.wikipedia talk page just now. Maybe you could take a look at it? Thanks in advance! Best regards, Niels(F)^{? en |}^nl 23:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick help and the notification on nl:! Cheers, Niels(F)^{? en |}^nl 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi mate, been away for a bit sorry, I've joined the task force now. Quick thing I hope you can help me with. You know the Royal House infoboxs which show the rulers of a certain dynasty and their children? How can you edit them? I can't seem to get at them to edit, because one of William I of England's adult sons isn't in the dynasty box but should be. Any clues?

Cheers man:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefalstar (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tilbesar to Turbessel

Adam, Would you please move the article Tilbesar to Turbessel over the redirect. I have occasionally seen Tell-Bāshir in print, but Turbessel is more common. It seems that the title ought to reflect name under which this place was significant. I have Robert W. Edwards' The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia coming from the library and will try to add some detail. Thanks. Aramgar (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Aramgar (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zionopedia?

Could you please take a look at the comment at the bottom of the Talk:Edward I of England page re "Zionopedia". My reflex was to delete this with an excoriating edit summary and a block request as it appears to be ... what it appears to be.

However, although I've seen stuff like this before, I've never encountered it in the context of something I was in the process of editing so I've contained my disgust and I refer it for your advice. Retarius | Talk 03:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your response; thanks for that! Retarius | Talk 05:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crusader-Ayyubid Wars

This is quite an artifical war, made more so by the exclusion of battles after the fall of Jerusalem in 1187 and the earlier Crusader Invasions of Egypt. Remember that Saladin was Sultan of Egypt from 1169, so he was in power when the abortive Crusader siege of Damietta occured in 1169. Oh by the way, do we have any article for 1169 siege? Tourskin (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a name change may be in order. If you think about it, if the Crusader-Ayyubid Wars existed, it was a Pyrric victory for the Crusaders, since they out-lasted their foes to 1291 but the Ayyubids fell after the French invasion of Egypt. So I think treating the Ayyubids seperately from the Mamlukes does not make much sense as in seperating pre-Saladin warfare from Ayyubid warfare. Therefore perhaps something along the lines of "Crusader Campaigns in the Holy Land". Then again, there is a redundancy issue; how much is already covered by the Crusades article, and yet other longer campaigns such as the Northern Crusades get their own war article even though they were not one massive two hundred year Crusade against Pagans. So... Tourskin (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almaric invaded only when he had Fatimid or Byzantine assistance. In all liklihood, he recieved help from potential enemies (even tho Manuel and him were buddies) because he lacked outside Crusader help from his Latin buddies back home. I don't know if this answers ur question if it was a seperate crusade. Yes, lets bring it up on the task page and reach a concensus or something. Tourskin (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist request

I posted this request on admin Paul August's talk page, but he's not online at the moment, and things may get out of hand before he can take a look at the situation. Here is the request I also posted on his Talk Page: "Could you keep an eye on edits by Mrg3105 at the article Prophet.? In late August 2007, Mrg3105 radically altered the article to reflect his own POV on the subject, something which was corrected in early November 2007 (see discussion page section entitled "What Happened?"[12])... 70.243.229.217 (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durres names

Why should there be other names rather than albanian in Durres page? There are no minorities in that city. I think it is POV 77.242.19.9 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely greeks never ruled Kruja, neither Durres, nor Vlora. They ruled Korca for 2 years, Permeti too, but this is not significat time. I propose that only Saranda, Delvina, Gjrokastra and Himara should have a name in greek. Or you should help me, get a turkish name to every single city in Greece. Do you agree?77.242.19.9 (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is nationalist and not true. If you like that way, go somewhere else not in wikipedia.77.242.19.9 (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP Adam

Adam, you seem to be coming through just as an IP these days. Can I ask why? (Just being nosey!) Incidentally, did you see BrainyBabe's reference to something called Poutine in the Bread discussion on Humanities? It's seemingly something enjoyed in Quebec, as I am sure you know. They must be gross! Your cheese poem was funny, but have you ever read William McGonagall? He is an absolute scream! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tripoli

Hey man, just rewrote Tripoli, pretty decent article from scratch hopefully. Just letting you know it's the last crusade stuff i will do for a while, becuase i'm going to focus on the hundred years war for a while. I'll be back with the task force after that though, cheers man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefalstar (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah forgot, most of the time when I include page numbers people delete them and just leave the Author's name etc. I'll add them tomorrow when I'm with the books. --Tefalstar (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing! :P The "Crusader-Ayyubid Wars" really does make me cringe, trying to lump Almaric's invasions of Egypt with Arsuf and the 7th Crusade etc is nonsensical. If it has to exist at all, it should start with Montisgard and end with the fall of Jerusalem surely? Cheers man --Tefalstar (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it makes no sense at all, no logic to it. Can't we just change it back to Montisgard through to Jerusalem? --Tefalstar (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin help

Hey. Can you tell me if "make battle and murder and rapine out of worldly cupidity" is a decent translation of facere praelia et homicidia et rapinas pro cupiditate terrena? I know it is not the most literal attempt, but is that what is being said? Thanks in advance. Srnec (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou again! Srnec (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

al-Tustari

You were right. I looked around on google books and found a book on Karaite Jewish history that explains this family of Jews were originally from Tustar in Persia. They eventually migrated to Egypt and became intertwined with Fatimid politics. In fact, they became so powerful that the leading members were assassinated. Abraham al-Tustari was actually the former owner of caliph Al Mustansir's mother, who was a black slave. He had originally gifted her to Caliph Ali az-Zahir. Abraham served as the mother's adviser until his murder.

Abu Sa'd, the great-grandson of Hesed, Abraham's brother, was among the Jews held captive by the Crusaders after the fall Jerusalem. He was held for a much larger ransom than the rest because of his influential lineage.

I'm assuming the Arabs with the name came from the same region. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project

Hi Adam, I hope all fine with you and your Crusader task force project. I did not do something yet for your project because I am busy now to fix articles of Mamluk Sultans. As soon as I am ready I will help. But if you need something you should tell me. Regards Samsam22 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Forbelet

Hey man, hope you're well. Do we have a page for the Battle of Forbelet, 1182 I think? I'm sure I'm just being stupid but I can't find it. Baldwin IV's army won a small follow up victory to Montgisard there, if that rings any bells?

Cheers man, --Tefalstar (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection I think Forbelet was the actual battle at Belvoir. But the Belvoir page is actually about Saladin's 1182 invasion, which was in 3 parts. Is it possible to change the name of that page because its really misleading right now, it wasn't just a battle :P I don't know how to go about it. Ta man, --Tefalstar (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transjordan Offensive? Think that's what Tyerman calls those months and Forbelet, I don't mind rewriting if we move it --Tefalstar (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think about that move mate? Also i've been adding the Templar flag to battle boxes in which the Grand Master was a commander, seemed like a good idea to me :P --Tefalstar (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66.252.191.90

Didn't know who else to ask, this school IP keeps vandalising Crusade pages but I can't ban them obviously. They've had 7 warnings since the last ban. --Tefalstar (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i spose, just annoying :P Have you thought any more about moving Belvoir? Cheers --Tefalstar (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PIMS

OK - we can cut the contact info. But I am going to add the two professors who got sideswiped by the reversal. Cheers Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Comments to User:Hotclaws**==

You seem to have misunderstood my labelling of the users comments as "witty and pithy". I was being sarcastic - which doesn't come out well in written prose :-) I was experiencing slight ref-desk-rage at that time, as there was a flood of opinion based/silly questions. Sure it happens to us all now and again, nes pas? ;-) Regards! Fribbler (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment still stands indeed, ;-) Fribbler (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"nice try"

... errm, I don't recall seeing that on WP:CSD. Care to elaborate? - Alison ^❤ 07:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi adam - you might have missed the recent DRV, which ahs just closed as recreate: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_8 - I am assuming that is the reason for your deletion of ED - the deletion summary seems to indicate that. Viridae ^Talk 08:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you may want to see this discussion if you haven't already.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I'm seeing this as being an out-of-process delete, especially given you didn't even attempt some sort of rationale. Please undo your admin action on this one. I'm not about to wheel-war on this, but let's stay within the rules here - Alison ^❤ 08:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ConstZoe.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ConstZoe.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BlueAzure (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forbelet

I noticed the discussion between you and Tefalstar (talk) about the battle of Forbelet. If this is indeed the real name for this action, I would be okay with changing the name. I'll admit that calling it the Battle of Belvoir Castle (1182) was a no-no; I named it myself from the nearest contemporary location. (According to Smail, p 152, more than one historian was convinced that it WAS a pitched battle but Smail didn't name what it was called.) The alternative was calling it the "Campaign of 1182" but this didn't seem to fit into the existing "Battle of" or "Siege of" style. I would prefer NOT to split up the article. I don't see what good purpose that would serve. In Beeler's narrative, the campaign is treated as a single event. Djmaschek (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bots on la.wikipedia 2

Hi Adam, could you please grant bot status to la:Usor:CarsracBot and to la:Usor:SilvonenBot? Thanks in advance! --la:Usor:UV 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Adam, these two bots are very active now and keep flooding our recentchanges. It would be great if you could grant them bot status so that other changes are easier to follow. Thanks! --UV (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another request: Please grant bot status to la:Usor:MelancholieBot as well. Thanks in advance! --UV (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete article

Hi Adam, how do I go about putting this user's page User:Alp38 up for deletion? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, do I need to ask for deletion of the User talk page as well, or is that automatic? Also this user: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} seems to be grading her assignments in posts to Alp38's talk page. I don't understand what's going on and if there are further steps needed, thanks Julia Rossi (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll contact him (it looks jokey but not really, odd) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, if you go to the misc delete[13], there's a keep because it's not hurting anything reason. Am I wasting wiki's space by doing this? – it's my first time. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, User:Ned Scott has replied to explain the exception. Looks like it's normal. See my talk page, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy on Ref Desk Misc

Hi, like richardrj, I too leap to the defense of 65.163.115.254, who's breathless news flashes crop up periodically on the Ref Desk Misc. Originally he was User:Martial_Law but has posted as an anon with changing IPs because he is roaming the US south west in an SUV. He can be a pest but isn't troll-like - I have been following his career here for quite some time. By the way, good luck with the PhD/small child combo, I know what its like! Mhicaoidh (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East Project

Hi, I am a fellow Crusades Task Force member from 19 March 2008 while the task force is new. I'm just wondering if you could ask me to write any article about the crusades that you do not have time for. I am very knowledgeable at the crusades. Furtheremore, I have nothing to do. Thanks For Yor Attention. Sincerely, --Hellboy2hell (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK

That's ok and please keep in touch. Sincerely, --Hellboy2hell (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani

Hey, I just finished the Imad ad-Din article. Visit it if you have the chance, thanks! (-Hellboy2hell (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)-)[reply]

account rename request at la.wikipedia

Hi Adam, please rename the indefinitely blocked la:Usor:Hégésippe to la:Usor:Renamed vandal 2 so that the real Hégésippe can use this account (see your talk page on la). Thanks! --la:Usor:UV 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just want to say thanks (-Hellboy2hell (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)-)[reply]

Reach for the top

Hi Adam:

Sorry, i'm new to this whole Wikipedia thing, so tell me if I'm off base on this. I've seen a number of edits coming from the same one or two IP addresses which question the integrity of the win by the 2007-08 Reach national champions. This situation has been discussed at length on the discussion boards (and I thought resolved)

I'll be upfront on my bias. I was one of the judges who made the call. But it was a solid call based on applying the rules, not by making a subjective judges' decision (if the buzz-in happens after time has expired and after the final horn sounds, the answer can't be accepted).

Don't know if anything can be done to keep these people from continually trying to rewrite history. What's the protocol here?

Thanks Diplomatic08 (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imad ad-Din

Hi Adam, I wnt to thank you for expanding the Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani page. Can you tell me where did you get the sources? Thanks in advance!! Sincerely (Hellboy2hell (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Islam Encyclopedia

The only thing I fear that the Encyclopedias' doesn't have a neutral point of view. Sincerely, (Hellboy2hell (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I hope so, still consider checking the article(s) for its neutrality and remember, Deus lo volt- God wills it! (Hellboy2hell (Want to reply?) 08:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Rating

Please read and rate the Al-Afdal ibn Salah ad-Din at its discussion page

Hellboy2hell (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh

Hey Adam, I know you've done this before, for me, but here I am, not having anticipated Wikimedia's unified login, asking you to change my name at la: once again. Could we go with just plain Ioscius? I will be making the same request everywhere. Thanks. --Ioscius ^(talk) 23:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine. Thanks a lot, man. --Ioscius ^(talk) 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarch of Lisbon

Before you blindly revert, please talk with me on the talk page. I'm splitting the article, I think it would make a fine article on the Patriarch of Lisbon, which is the title you've chosen. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is so much history on the office, that can't really fit on a diocese page. It deserves it's own page frankly, as you have said it's unique. I could easily write a featured article while the diocese pages are a bit more utilitarian. Their main purpose is to give people an overview of the structure and it's history. There will be some overlap, but the story of how the patriarch came to be deserves to be in the article. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Afdal

Hei Adam, would you mind if you tell me why you changed the Al-Afdal page? Thanks in Advance!! Sincerely with no hard feelings,

Hellboy2hell (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry possible overkill. I didn't notice the entry you made at it's disscusion page and Thanks!! Hellboy2hell (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation at la-wiki

Hello Adam. I have asked for a usurpation at la-wiki, please see la:Disputatio Usoris:Adam Episcopus#Usurpation of User:Caesar. Thank you in advance! –Caesar (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah

My first language is Malay but I know English at a high level.

Hellboy2hell (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for the second letter in WP:RBI ...

I know it's somewhat futile, given the dynamics. But there's been enough disruption from this particular IP now. I won't take this to any of the noticeboards because I'm tired of explaining. Could you hit your magic button? Pretty please? ---Sluzzelin talk 10:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, someone else noticed. Thanks for removing the disruptive nonsense several times. Best wishes. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Jerusalem

Hi Adam, I have nominate Kingdom of Jerusalem as a Featured Article Candidate. You can find it at the FA —Comment added by Hellboy2hell (talk • contribs) 01:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mawi

Hey Adam, can you please semi-protect this page? It is a frequent target of vandals especially IP's. Sincerely, Hellboy2hell (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Mawi

Suit yourself but I know that the Mawi article is a target. Sincerely with no hard feelings, Hellboy2hell (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please not Reston

Re: Battle of Cresson article. Is Reston's work not credible? Please explain. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades Task Force

I am terribly sorry. I come here to inform you the bad news that I am quiting the Crusader Task Force. This must happen because:

I want to help Malaysian-related articles
I have a lot of work already being at RC Patrol, NP Patrol, CVU and Others.

I have only one request of you my friend, take care. Sincerely, ĤéĺĺвοЎ (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ĤéĺĺвοЎ (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ,Hellboy2hell, hereby award you the Hellboy2hell barnstar for helping, pleasing or being kind to me. ĤéĺĺвοЎ (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wanna help me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Haereticorum

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves&action=edit&section=54

I need lots of admin help right now. I've reverted the easy edits ~300, but I need another 10 more.

archdioceses of: San Francisco, Washington, New York need to be reverted back to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of X.

Sao Paulo, Rio De Janerio need to be reverted.

4 more in Spain.

8 in Poland. :D Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are the 20 moves I am requesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Washington

Move from "Archdiocese of Washington to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_New_York

Move from "Archdiocese of New York" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_S%C3%A3o_Paulo

Move from "Archdiocese of Sao Paulo to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Sao Paolo"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_S%C3%A3o_Salvador_da_Bahia

Move from "Archdiocese of Sao Salvador da Bahia to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Sao Salvado da Bahia"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_S%C3%A3o_Sebasti%C3%A3o_do_Rio_de_Janeiro

Move from "Archdiocese of Sao Sebastiao do Rio de Janeiro to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Sao Sebasiao do Rio de Janeiro"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Burgos

Move from "Archdiocese of Burgos" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Burgos"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Santiago_de_Compostela

Move from "Archdiocese of Santiago de Compostela" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Santiago de Compostela"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Tarragona

Move from "Archdiocese of Terragona" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Terragona"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Toledo

Move from "Archdiocese of Toledo" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Bia%C5%82ystok

Move from "Archdiocese of Bialystok" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bialystok"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Cz%C4%99stochowa

Move from "Archdiocese of Czestochowa" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Czesochowa"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Cz%C4%99stochowa

Move from "Archdiocese of Gdansk" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Gdansk"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Gniezno

Move from "Archdiocese of Gniezno" to "Roman catholic Archdiocese of Gniezno"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Krak%C3%B3w

Move from "Archdiocese of Krakow to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Krakow"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_%C5%81%C3%B3d%C5%BA

Move from "Archdiocese of Lodz" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lodz"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Lublin

Move freom "Archdiocese of Lublin to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lublin"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Pozna%C5%84

Move from "Archdiocese of Poznan to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Poznan"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Szczecin-Kamie%C5%84

Move from "Archdiocese of Szczecin-Kamien" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Szczecin-Kamien"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Warsaw

Move from "Archdiocese of Warsaw" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Warsaw"--BLOCKED

One more I missed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Athenai

Move from "Archdiocese of Athenai" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Athenai"--BLOCKED

Dei patris immensa

Hiya, I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of porting your fascinating translation of Dei Patris Immensa over to Wikisource. So the two documents, Latin & English, should be viewable at this link:[14] I made sure to give you credit on the EN-WS talkpage, and if you'd like to tweak any further, please feel free. Thanks again for your work on this. :) --El on ka 03:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Wikisource actively encourages original translations. :) --El on ka 03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Hello Adam. I found that two of the 1245 letters of Innocent IV have already been translated by Christopher Dawson. The translations are available at the Boston University digitized theological library here. This might help you sort out some of the question-marked passages in your translation. I only came across the BU site by accident ... Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hagia Sophia

Ciao Adam, I noticed that you removed the ottoman turkish name. Why? Is it wrong? Kind regards, Alex2006 (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, many thanks! I noticed that the name has been added by an anonymous user, and I am always suspicious about such additions... Have a nice day, (or night? ;-)) Alex2006 (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]