User talk:Adam Bishop/archive5

• Archive: June 10-December 30, 2003
• Archive 2: December 30, 2003-July 15, 2004
• Archive 3: July 17-December 30, 2004
• Archive 4: January 1-July 13, 2005
• Archive 5: July 17-December 31, 2005
• Archive 6: January 3-July 19, 2006
• Archive 7: July 21, 2006-July 12, 2007
• Archive 8: July 17, 2007-July 2, 2008
• Archive 9: July 5, 2008-July 12, 2009
• Archive 10: July 17, 2009-June 30, 2011

Adam: Jordan Elder has been vandalizing my user page (last night, he put the text of the VFD template at the top of my user page). --OntarioQuizzer 16:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert. I would have done it myself but I wanted to bring it to the attention of an Admin. --OntarioQuizzer 22:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Adam Bishop,

I have been referred to you by Sango123. The following are some of the vandalized and consequently blocked pages by username Joy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duklja http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travunia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Serb_lands03.jpg etc...

Please refer to the following discussion as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Serb_lands03.jpg

Multiple users have been blocked as well and this is hurting our Wikipedia community. This should not and cannot go unnoticed. I appreciate your help very much.

Thanks, UCLA - Pasadena

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ARD and Jwalker and the linked pages for information about this whole affair. We've tolerated his mockery of our rules (and of common sense, even) for a long time... --Joy [shallot] 09:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam: The David Madden VfD has been open since the 13th and I'm not sure if any of the Administrators have noticed it. Is it possible for consensus judging to begin on it? --OntarioQuizzer 10:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That link has been there for weeks, and how is a list of google maps location not relevant to google maps..Elfguy 12:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that vandalism to my userpage. I appreciate it. --Canderson7 21:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

So the brits use very antiquaristic language to title historic themes, I didn't knew. I'm sorry for my latest edits. See discussion teutonic knights, entry teutonic? --12 Tenma 19:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Didn't know who to turn to, noticed that you have helped me in the past. Sorry of the intrusion. I would like to create a table, not sure how it will look and wanted to experiment with various forms of table's or lists. I was looking for a listing of the function codes such that I can understand their usage, such as cellpadding, etc. If you could point me in the right direction that would be fantastic. HJKeats 13:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not really, unless there are some things there that isn't clear to me. I have gone through a lot of the style guides and noticed that there are commands inbedded in them that I have no idea the function of them. I was looking for a list of the functions and what they do. HJKeats 15:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Adam, User:Derek Ross has moved Virgil to Vergil and is changing to that speliing in lots of articles. In my experience "Virgil" is the much more common spelling. What is your experience? I've posted a comment on this at Talk:Vergil. If you have any thoughts on the matter you might want to join the discussion there. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 18:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Paul August ☎ 18:55, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. (RJP)

I hate to come discuss this, but I don't know any other way. User A. Lafontaine, who's behaviour convinced many of us that he was DW/Angelique/JillandJack resurrected, is going over all articles which contain an instance of "Patriotes" and replaces them with "rebels". Also, he is still at it removing any sentence which conflicts with his belief. As before, he is doing everything unilaterally and is not open to any discussion.

If you are bored to death and have nothing better to do, you can read the talk pages of Talk:Secession of Quebec, Talk:Quebec sovereignty movement, Talk:Quebec and others. I am wasting a lot of time replying to him/her with what I believe are sufficient proofs that he is mistaken. I find it pointless and quite demanding, as reasoning with an unreasonable person always is.

It just happens that most of my contributions in English deal with Quebec's history and politics, so I see almost everything he does just by looking at my watchlist. It seems to me, although I have no proof whatsoever, that he is going over the list of my contributions and systematically taints each article I have created or edited with his point of view.

I didn't find the time, energy, and patience to undo everthing that JillandJack had done before, so I am very discouraged at the prospect of undoing A. Lafontaine's irrational modifications.

What steps can we take to have user A. Lafontaine expelled since reasoning with him appears to be an impossibility? Is there anything we can do to have him not reappear yet again a few weeks after?

Sorry to disturb you.

-- Mathieugp 17:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How does he manage to create a new account everytime? Is it because he is connected to the Internet through an ISP using a system which dynamically allocates IP adresses? Are Wikipedia administrators in a position to avoid people from creating news accounts over and over again after being banned? I am very curious to know.

I am also not opposed to the change from Patriotes Rebellion to Lower Canada Rebellion. In fact, I am the one who did the original article move. :-) I am opposed to A. Lafontaine's tagging each Patriote leader as a "rebel". Most "rebels" never took arms and escaped to the USA to same their lives. Those who resisted their arrest out of principle became "heroes" on one side and "rebels" on the other. The use of either "hero" or "rebel" is precisely what the No-POV policy tries to prevent. Anyways, I don't think we disagree on this, so I'll stop babbling right there. Thanks again Adam. :-) -- Mathieugp 21:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing the copyright violation made in Rihanna's biographical article. The edits in question were made by 203.14.53.15 and a note has been left on the contributor's talk page regarding the matter. Hall Monitor 21:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been having a huge amount of trouble with a vandal (Universaliss on the Qiyamah page. I ask that he, and every other sockpuppet he uses be banned, and the page protected. Dmcdevit was previously contacted but has refused to take any action thus far. For more information see the Qiyamah talk page, Universaliss's talk page, and my talk page. Thank you for your time. freestylefrappe 18:11, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Uh....doesnt his personal attacks towards Zora go under the category of vandalism? or his last ten edits which i reverted as they simply were a several month old version of the page? Thanks. freestylefrappe 18:21, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Are you a muslim lover or something?

Hello, I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for devandalizing my userpage! Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 17:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've listed Image:Krak2.jpg for deletion, since it wasn't used on any page and its image tag is now considered "unfree". If you feel that this image should not be deleted, you can go to WP:IFD to voice your opinion. Thanks. :) Coffee 05:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And Image:ByzantineChariot.jpg too. :p Coffee 05:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A team of trolls seems to be continuously vandalizing your userpage, you must really be doing a good job. Keep up the good work. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I was reviewing their pages and discovered they are listed as cousins of unknown relationship, but I understood they were brothers. Can you clarify this? Drachenfyre 21:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

just to mention that I wasn't destroying the page but splitting it in several pages so that many people could enhance the page for each battle.

Best

Poppypetty 01:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jenmoa/birthday --User:Jenmoa 00:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added an image 3D_Incongruent_Counterparts_Blue.jpg when trying to update another picture. I'd be very grateful if you could delete it. (If there is some other way I should try to get images deleted, I'd be grateful if you could tell me). --Dast 09:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. --Dast 15:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have the London article on my watchlist as it seems to attract a fair bit of vandalism. Someone removed the Bill Brady entry in the notable person category yesterday, so I did some research on the man before I made the readdition. The anon who just removed it says "by no objective measure is he notable". Not just for his Order of Canada, but his presidency of the broadcaster association, and his entry in the broadcasting hall of fame, but he was the first Canadian radio journalist who had a phone in talk show. That in itself establishes notability. My theory is that since Brady is still on the air, he may have detractors that disagree with whatever topic hes discussing on a particular day and deleting his entry for spite. Its always anons who make these changes as well. If you havn't already, I'll revert his changes, thanks for your time, see ya 'round! Hamster Sandwich 17:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Adam, I noticed you restored that part of the notable Londoners section. Thanks! I left a note on that page to respond to the anon who removed it earlier. It got me thinking, maybe a section of London residents that have won the Order of Canada? Also I was thinking that Peter Desberats might be worthy of inclusion to the noteable section as well.Questions, comments, ideas? See you! Hamster Sandwich 21:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there has to be a minimum bar to be set, I think Brady meets it by being a national hall of fame member. Desberats if you're not familiar was an anchor at Global news for many years, but has gone on to be a published author and head of UWO's journalism dept. I was more amused that someone included Roy McDonald to that list. Hes very much a character, but definately in the local scope only. I won't think of changing it though. If Joe Swan is there, well... Susan Eagle probably should be there as well.

Hamster Sandwich 21:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, my last comment was directed at the anon, and not to you. Sorry, but in rereading it, my statement kind of looked like I was coming down on you. My apologies if it was misconstrued. Hamster Sandwich 22:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir! If you have a few minutes, please check out Bill Brady, and you may want to see the dialogue at User talk:Splash concerning this. Hamster Sandwich 21:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents under Bill Brady Bandit, to make sure there not looking at your IP address by mistake. Hamster Sandwich 23:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Re:Man of the year. I just laughed so hard...Geez! (Snicker) Thanks for the info Adam! Hamster Sandwich 19:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I ran across Manticore, and saw that you protected it about a month back to stop some fairly determined vandals. With any luck they've run off by now, so I'm going to go ahead and unprotect. Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please join me in celebrating my 1000th edit at Wikipedia, the most important online information resource! Hamster Sandwich 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, sorry I forgot to add edit summaries on my last two reverts. I was trying to do them as fast as possible. My apologies! Hamster Sandwich 22:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw you listed as one of our rare users who are good at Latin. Would you be willing to help translating a bit of text from English into Latin? Let me know please. Yours, Radiant_>|< 09:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia has a number of WikiPrayers. I've translated a couple, but my Latin is a bit rusty. Radiant_>|< 09:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Tibi gratias ago! Radiant_>|< 08:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hello dear. You are a wiki admin and I need your help. Can you explain about this changes to my page? [Insulting, abusing and vandaling language!] He is flooding page Kourosh ziabari with under-18 langauge all time and I don't know what to do 70.52.6.147 He uses many IPs and Wiki IDs and I don't know what to do. 70.52.6.147 is his last IP. and also visit this comparation page that shows the changes of main page to the insulting content [1]

Thanks for reverting my User page. Zoe 06:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The article is still being vandalized by an anonymous editor. It might need to be protected again. -- LGagnon 15:14, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Are you stalking me? You're not from some Stalinist state, are you? Besides, how did you know exactly where to look?? No one had better monitor me, because I live in the United States, a free country. If I used Wikipedia in China or North Korea (ish...), I'd expect it a bit more. --Shultz 03:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Adam's message) So how/why did you decide to look up "Kim Il-Sung City" at the same time that I put it up? Isn't that a huge, huge coincidence?

All right. I guess that's how you can catch it. But I thought new articles get added so fast that what I'd add would immediately fall off the page before you had a chance to notice it.

I guess there's no "stalking" after all. Would like to know how to "lock" articles though... --Shultz 04:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Like you work. One question: have you any further information on the rest of Tancred's son, particularly Serlo? When was he born, what did he do, who did he marry, what became of his descendants, when did he himself die? Anything would be appreciated. Fergananim 22:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a shame! Thanks anyway. You would'nt be able to point me in the direction of someone who might know, or at least the names of any print journals and articles that might help? Also, could you provide a list of articles of yours as you seem to be working in areas I too find stimulating. Cheers! Fergananim 22:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! Loads of articles! I'm gonna be very happy for the immediate future in reading these. Cheers! Fergananim 23:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HI Adam,

I noticed you reverted the edits I made to Mykonos Nightlife.

I don't think that doing this is justified. It is afterall the "Nightlife" section and that requires some input from someone who has been there many times to let people know what the island is all about. No accurate description of that island can exist without some detailed description of what goes on there at night and why it is so popular. I can edit some of it so that it doesn't sound as touristy as you say but considering the section I put it in, I think it is valid and ture to many other articles I've seen.

Please see Talk:Mykonos regarding this matter. --dionyziz 21:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Kindly take a look at Talk:John, Duke of Burgundy, where a poll is ongoing. Arrigo 10:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, as an admin, could you kindly delete pages that now are not proper articles, only technicals: Philip III, Duke of Burgundy and Demetrius Palaeologus (to make room for move) or is it beyond your entitlemens? Arrigo 16:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Arrigo's attention was drawn by the recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) to articles on nobles in the "name-byname" format, and he's been trying to move them to "name-ordinal-title" and create redirects for the various "name-bynames", unfortunately, leaving a lot of double redirects. I think I've fixed them all now. I put in the request for the move of Philip III because it seemed reasonable, and I haven't been involved in the pie fight over bynames (vide supra). Choess 18:45, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

After looking that text Thomas and Demetrius Palaeologus are needing clean up and demand of Arrigo for one article about Thomas and another about Demetrius I have writen today article Thomas Palaeologus . Around 09.09 article about Demetrius will be finished ( I got problems with his titles ). Yes and I have problem with year from which is Demetrius in Morea without leaving this province. I have birth year for Thomas 1409 ( from memory ) and for Demetrius 1410 ( from memory ). For now article Thomas Palaeologus is not connected with anything. I think to write in article Constantine XI succeded by Thomas and Demetrius with separated connection: one for Thomas Palaeologus second for Demetrius Palaeologus. I write to you because of your administrator status for later complete deleting of now article "Thomas and Demetrius Palaeologus" or will you transfer on that place only Thomas. rjecina

Hi Adam, thanks for your help. Rjecina reported that he has more or less completed his versions of [Demetrius Palaeologus]] and Thomas Palaeologus. There is no longer any problem with these articles, imo (The extra Demetrius page is tagged with merge suggestion, has no edit history worth saving as Rjecina has contributed almost the same to the better one, is more or less already merged, and sooner or later someone will delete it.) - I then made copyedits in both Demetrius Palaeologus and Thomas Palaeologus. Perhaps it would be good if you copyedit my mistakes... Arrigo 20:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's "nonsense" but figured it was better that they had a heads up that someone was doing it and forging a signature, which is why I added the unsigned template and my sig to let them know added it (since others were doing the reverts). You obviously disagree, but since I don't have a strong opinion on the subject (like most) that's fine by me.  :) User:DJ_Clayworth asked what the protocol was on my talk if you want to jump in. I've given my opinion.  :) Regards. Wikibofh 04:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that Center-for-Medieval-Studies is another sockpuppet of mr. Williamson. Just look at the one edit on the Joan of Arc page: promoting part of a site of mr. Williamson that doesn't even exist yet! The site he's promoting is www.joan-of-arc.info - a center of studies, without any info about this "organization". It's owned by mr. Williamson though. Mr. Williamson claims he's a specialist on the Hundred Years War. All edits of Center-for-Medieval-Studies relate to that. This is the second time mr. Williamson claims he's a "center of studies", all by himself. Switisweti 18:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My {{d}} didn't even land:

User Adam Bishop (talk) deleted this article after you started editing with reason: content was: 'Cleph is...' (and the only contributor was '202.69.186.83') Please confirm that really want to recreate this article.

brenneman^(t)(c) 06:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles#Dates in battle page names please have a look at Talk:Battle of the Granicus (334). Philip Baird Shearer 11:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it refered to as both "the Alexiad" and "The Alexiad" both are reasonable translations, but given a choice between these two it makes sense to me to prefer using just plain Alexiad as the primary article and The Alexiad as the redirect just simply to avoid the "The". Caerwine 23:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adam,

I moved the article on Duke Godfrey I, back to "Godfrey I of Leuven". In fact, this Godfrey was only landgrave of Brabant and Duke of Lower Lotharingia. The title of Duke of Brabant appears at the earliest under Duke Henry I from about 1183/1184. This Henry succeeds as Duke of Lotharingia in 1190. Don't worry: even for Belgian historians this is confusing. Best regards, Witger 11:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on a bid to bring Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. I have contacted KMDI, an institute at the University of Toronto. They are very interested in partnering with us, and can get us a full range of U of T facilities for free. With this offer I think there is a very good chance of bringing Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. The only thing we currently lack are people willing to help out. I'm willing to do much of the work, but for the time being I am in Ottawa and having some people on the ground in Toronto will be necessary. We also need a number of people willing to assist at the actual event, likely the first weekend of August 2006. If you are interested in helping out sign up at Wikimania 2006/Toronto. Preliminary bids from various cities need to be made by Sept. 30, 2005, at which point a committee will choose which city gets to host the event. The number of people willing to help will certainly be an important consideration. - SimonP 16:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have been thinking today why not start article Despots of Morea, so after Constantine XI it will be writen next ruler Demetrius Despot of Morea. Person which like formal history will be happy because Constantine XI will be last emperor, and others which like to know what has really happened will be happy. I write this to you because for that will be needed your list of Morea rulers so it will maybe be best that you write that article. For now you have story about 4 despots I can write little about Theodore I to be five. More that enough for your article Despot of Morea ?? I have been thinking for possibility of making similar to List of Byzantine emperors list of Morea despots. Simple possibility for making table on the article end. Example for Theodore II:

  Morea Despot  prev=Theodore I with=Constantine XI next=Constantine XI
  To tell the truth I have tried that but my version is not working.
   I will add Theodore I this sunday.

Rdsmith4 has allowed me to start a new account on wikipedia if i promised not to cause any more trouble and clean up my act(see the user page of my old account, User:Adamwankenobi). I saw that you just blocked it. Can you unblock it now? Thanks. 67.140.149.207 07:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

give us a break will you? I was just teaching someone that works for Artsadmin how to use Wiki and setting up a page for them. They are a very important Arts organisation in the UK.

And this is the weekend!

Thanks.

I see that you're now at U of T, but you're from London, Ontario? I'm also from London and just signed on to Wikipedia a few days ago.

Agree that Peter Desbarets should be included as a "Notable Londoner." I notice that he's not included at the present time.

Medieval Studies. Must be an interesting area to study. Barry Wells 23:31, 10 September 2005

The Nasty Wing really existed and I was part of it. I think it merits a place on Wiki. Perhaps the author should be given a chance to rewrite it. I cleaned it up a bit.

(UTC)

Just going through RC and I noticed you deleted The Peaceable Kingdom. I think it would make a useful redirect to The Peaceable Kingdom: An American Saga. I will recreate it. Just wanted to let you know so you didn't think I was trying to start an edit war. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather 03:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Kingdom of Jerusalem is (was) a sub-category of Category:Battles by country, while Category:Battles of the Crusades is a sub-category of Category:Battles by war; I fail to see how the two are redundant, as they are different ways of categorizing the battles, and, since battles under Category:Battles of the Crusades were fought by different states, cannot be added to that category directly.

Thus, I'm not quite certain what your objection is; are you against using Category:Battles by country, or is there some other issue I'm not aware of? Kirill Lokshin 00:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wasn't indending to split Category:Battles of the Crusades; all the battles would still be in it, but also in one or more categories by country.

On the other hand, you make a good point regarding category sizes; categories that will never contain more than a few articles are not particularly useful. I'm hardly an expert on the Crusades, so you're probably in a better position to judge this. Would any of the individual crusader states have more than a dozen or so battles (not necessarily having articles yet) associated with it? Or is the number of possible articles in this area too small? Kirill Lokshin 03:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification.; if the number of battles is that small, the extra categories probably are excessive. I'll refrain from over-categorizing the Crusade battles in the future. Kirill Lokshin 14:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adam! I hope things are going well for you. Can you help me translate these titles into mideival Latin. Mayhap as William of Tyre might have translated them?

King/Queen is Rex/Regina Prince/Princess is Princeptus/ ?? Duke/Duchess is Dux/ ?? Count/Countess is Comes/Comitissa Baron/Baroness is Baro/ ??

any other nobility titles or their officer titles as they would appear in writtings.

Thanx!Drachenfyre 14:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After consulting a source I respect, I've modified my request at Talk:Æ#Requested move to Aesc. Please have a look there for my justification and reconsider your vote. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2005-09-26 22:46 Z

Dear Adam,

I recently created a page called WikiConstitution. It was deleted, and I asked for help in Help Desk. Here's the response I received:

"You actually created the page under the title Wikiconstitution. This page was speedy deleted by Adam Bishop, who cited WP:NOT, "wikipedia is not a social experiment". If you feel your article did not qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD, you should contact that user on User talk:Adam Bishop to see about having the page undeleted and put through WP:AFD. --Canderson7 00:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)"

"Wikipedia is not a social experiment" is not one of the items on the "wikipedia is not" list. If it were, I don't think the WikiConstitution page would fit that definition anyhow; I think of it as a valid demonstration of the notion of a WikiConstitution. At any rate, violation of the "wikipedia is not" list does not seem to be a valid reason for speedy deletion. Can you clarify why the page was deleted, or what I could do to have it reinstated or considered more widely?

Thanks,

llemma.

Those are two nicks used by one user who's started a dozen or so fictional entries and changed the existing articles in order to suite his effot. Pretty elaborate , you can see some of it at [2] [3] [4] [5] ... It goes on an on... See the deletion log for more if you're interested. GeneralPatton 04:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hai Adam, there are intresting articles about Ayyavazhi, a new religion on both mythology and religiosity. Wikipedia is rich with this topic in English, but poor in other languages. Since french is a leading language in Wikipedia it is better to translate the contents on this AYYAVAZHI family to french. - Paul Raj

What spamming? This particular topic is rich in english wikipedia and so I requested french users to do some thing. What is here spamming? Is there any thing wrong about that? - Paul Raj

Hello, and thanks for signing up at Wikimania_2006/Toronto. It has been announced that there will be a half hour meeting on the Wikimania IRC channel tomorrow October 2, at 20:00 UST (4:00 pm EST) to pick the 3 city shortlist. It would be great if you could attend. Also these are our last hours to ensure that our bid at Wikimania_2006/Toronto is as good as it can be, so improvements to it would also be useful. - SimonP 20:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Do I even need to explain why? It's pretty impressive, even for a topic such as this :) Adam Bishop 16:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)"

Yes, you do need to explain why. Please explain on Talk:Al Majdal#NPOV tag. Quale 02:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I seek your assistance in a debate on medieval clothing. I could explain it all here, but it's all on the Joan of Arc Talk page and the Cross-dressing Talk page. I'm not an expert on these clothes, but maybe you are, or maybe you know someone who is. Regards, HAJARS 10:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to answer your question on my talk page about Ferris Buellers Day Off/Art, I just thought that it would interfere with the movie article showing thumbnails of the paintings.. but i'm not sure, I created that when I was fairly new to wikipedia Cfitzart 06:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this IP account for repeated attacks. Regards. Lectonar 09:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your block msg on that user was nice. I loved it. ;) --Cool Cat ^Talk 19:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Mr Bishop. I have no intention to "edit" or otherwise disturb your web page, but I could not find any other way to make contact with you. I am very sure you monitor your web page as, apparently, you do other Wikipedia pages. With respect to Feudalism in Colonial America — now having disappeared completely from the Feudalism Page — No, I was not trying to write a book, merely to provide a thorough presentation, in short form, of the original. I am new to Wikipedia (and thus having great dificulty getting things formatted correctly; see my many, many often futile attempts to re-edit) and, like you, an historian. My principal interest is English Constitutional History and am well-published in several of its more obscure and little-understood areas of the subject.

As for the attempted entry, Feudalism in Colonial America, I shall leave it alone and off the Wikipedia web site. I regret inadvertently taking up too much space.

If you wish to make contact with me directly, you may use my e-mail address, ecalibre@alltel.net

Kind regards,

Thomas Shalford

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Ontario page as living in or being associated with Ontario. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Ontario for instructions.--Rmky87 02:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

		An Award
		I award this Epic Barnstar to Adam Bishop for his extensive work on history articles.

I'm suprised to see that no one's given you barnstars yet. You've made major contributions to the 'pedia's History articles, and you were the first Wikipedian to contact me about my own. Thanks for all your work, and thanks for being a friendly and helpful 'pedian. LordAmeth 17:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the 1911 encyclopedia is in the public domain, but the source from which the text was directly copied does matter. I thought that the text was copied from LoveToKnow Free Online Encyclopedia which would have been a copyvio (as noted on the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. The "See: W. Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, vol. i. (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1904)" line led me to believe this. I didn't think to check the actual public domain 1911 but I thought it should be investigated. Anyhow, the text is the original so we're fine. Sorry for the mixup. -- Rmrfstar 22:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! May I invite to to our discussions regarding Serbs and Croats? HolyRomanEmperor 16:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

heh 207.200.116.66 00:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are a historian (as I hope to be), please do something here and offer whatever you can, thanks. Molotov (talk)
22:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I came across the 20th Canadian Battalion CEF in Wikipedia:Deadend pages. I cleaned it up a bit, but it looks like it deserves better. I know you have an interest in Candian history, so I thought I'd send it your way in the hope that you'd like a go at it. TIA -- Mwanner | Talk 16:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam. I am writing about an erroneous reference in today's home page, regarding the"Names of the Greeks". Somewhere it says "...while those in the Byzantine Empire would call them Yunans.". This is wrong and I think you understand better why. The Byzantines were overwhelmingly Greeks themselves, especially in the later ages. They didn't call themselves names from other languages. It's fairly well explained in the article itself.--Spryom 04:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my response on Talk:Kievan Rus' and check today's edits of user:AndriyK. They consist of nothing but wide-scale vandalism that disrupts dozens of articles. A number of editors have to clean the mess he keeps introducing, which results in disruption of the history pages for dozens of articles. For instance, I took infinite pains to write Russian architecture. Without any explanation, the vandal moved it today to Architecture of Rus, although the page treats Imperial Russia and Muscovy. Now, there are two identical articles. I need your advise how to stop this nightmare. --Ghirlandajo 09:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my answer Talk:Kievan Rus'#Template - Ilya K 19:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Adam,

I would like to bring your attention to the article on St. Volodymyr's Cathedral. Less than two weeks ago this was a nicely-written article about the Cathedral, about the architecture, mosaics, frescoes, the history how the Cathedral was built etc. (see the last version of 00:03, 20 October 2005 by Mzajac [6])

At 15:06, 22 October 2005 User:Kuban kazak decided to use this preaty neutral and nice article to push his POV that is far from being neutral (see his contribution [7]). This stared a long-lasting edit war.

Even if his insertion were neutral (this was definitelly not the case) this is a serious question whether it's legal to use architecture, art, music etc. articles for advertising (or bringing attention to) political issues. Does it improve the Wikipedia content? Does it make the work of editors more productive? Is it not an abuse of Wikipedia for propaganda purposes?

It looks like this is a more broad question. Inserting political stuff into initially quite neutral, nice and popular articles is quite common in Wikipedia. I admit that the question is not simple. Sometimes political stuff is important and the article looks incomplete without it. But in most cases the politiocal stuff is irrelevant and just force the reader to spend his/her time for reading the information s/he was not actually looking for. In my opinion, a serious discussion is needed. What's your opinion?

It would be indeed nice to protect the article in its politics-free form until the discussion is over.

On the other hand, if User:Kuban kazak and Irpen consider the political stuff important they can write a separate article on the subject. Is it not a reasonable compromize? It would be however nice if somebody of experienced and respectable users would explain Irpen and Kuban kazak, that it is extremely important to base the Wikipedia articles on creadible sources and to avoid any propaganda issues.--AndriyK 08:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Adam, for stopping that unfortunate edit war over the use of the series template! I guess "ridiculous" was a very polite way to put it; I personally cannot understand how can people be so easy at destroying others' work without even trying to understand it first, and worse - trying to pull their history apart and juggle its pieces to best suit their minute political ideas of today. Isn't everything connected in this world? It only seems that it is not... Wouldn't it be nice if at least early history was left alone, set free of politics or nationalistic battles; alas... Oh well, I am hoping I didn't sound too harsh :) or too stupid; sorry if I was wrong somewhere, but I was sincerely trying my best to stay ~neutral~ and not too emotional. Perhaps if you have interest, and the time, you'd consider to contribute more to Rus' history as the expert! Best regards - Introvert ^talk 08:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Through exploring more on the Crusader Kingdoms I have become interested in Mideival titles, and had docovered an interesting web sie that chronicalled what many mideival rulers called themselves. That is where I got ducissa (from how Eleanor of Aquitaine was called in her lands on official Aquitaine documents).

Why did you remove the Melisende image of the Queen accepting hommage? I know you doubt that it was Melisende, but it could be to. Do you have a copy of all the images in the Melisende Psalter? I remember the person who posted it had emailed me that it was from there.

Anyway the book I am reading Queen of Swords has a mideival image it suggests is Melisende and Baldwin II in Acre waiting for Fulk of Anjou, who is himself depicted in Acre's harber. I am unsure where the image is from so havent suggested it yet. It is as a compelling image as the Queen accepting homage. Ill keep you up to date.

It seems there is so much history and events wrapped up in those Crusader States, so much foundation. It is surprising to me the more I read of the governmental structures. There was a high sence of chivelry and yet women were according more freedoms then in other Mideival countries, even if by default that all the men died early. It amazes me that not more is widely known of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem!

Anywho! Happy Belated B-Day!

Drachenfyre

Hello? HolyRomanEmperor 21:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahm, I posted on your talk page on October 16... got no reply. HolyRomanEmperor 13:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could've at least told me that back then :( Anyway, may I know the reason why not? HolyRomanEmperor 20:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could've at least told me that back then :( Anyway, may I know the reason why not? HolyRomanEmperor 20:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can asure thee that I am not a member of that shisofraniac rabble. I bid you to look at my user page and read it a little. You'll then see what I mean. HolyRomanEmperor 21:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nevermind then; so long, my friend! HolyRomanEmperor 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Adam, I've just posted the following on the discussion page for London, Ontario. Perhaps you can help me out on this one. Did this babe attend UWO for a few years or something?

Natalie Glebova, 2005 Miss Universe is included as a Notable Londoner, yet her bio says she was born in Russia and moved to Toronto at age 12. Has she ever lived in London? It's my understanding that all media reports referred to her as a Torontonian. I don't think that she belongs on the list but will leave it for a few days for comment. User:Barry Wells, November 13, 2005.

I have no vested interest in films.com. I was just very glad to discover that they existed, because it meant that I could get on DVD plays I had wanted for many years. They don't advertise, so unless you happen to stumble onto them, as I did, there is no way of seeing these wonderful plays. I added the information because I thought that others would be glad to learn about it. If films are commonly available, as most films are, then it is obviously spam to recommend one place to buy them over another. On the other hand, if films are only available in one place, and that place does not advertise, then I think the information is appropriate.

But, I'm not going to get into a reversion war. I hope, after consideration, you will restore what you have deleted. If not, so be it.

Similarly with the Shakespeare on DVD. I've wanted a complete set of Shakespeare on DVD for many, many years. But the company that produces these does not advertise (except maybe to academic libraries). Also, when you search, say, amazon.com for "Shakespeare" on DVD, some plays come up and others don't. I thought that fans of Shakespeare would be glad to know what was available. Rick Norwood 13:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These are the arguments posted on the page of "Moldovan language".

For these facts many users have been blocked and more forced to accept an unilateral point of view of the Administrator Mikkalai and 16 years old Kid [[Node _ue]]. He does not bring arguments as we do, instead he uses his power to block many times (for one week or 24 h). Like for yourself, he warned you and mock on you saying that you don't have the right to say something.

I agree with you when you say to redirect to "Romanian language". Anyway "Romanian" was once recognized in the constitution as official language of the Moldova between 1991-1994 and many attempts to remake this were done.

"Moldovan language" is in fact indentical with Romanian language, renamed as a "language" for political reasons by the government. Although similar theories have been fielded for other languages, this proposal is now believed to have been made to serve political purposes only, and nobody has provided any evidence so-far towards the idea that Moldovan and Romanian are not from common linguistic stock.

The term "Moldovan" is also a soviet invention (see Dept. of State & CIA). A separate language based on these was declared and promoted for political reasons, in order to further advance a Moldovan identity separate from that of Romania.

The soviet Russians called people of Moldavia Republic: "Moldovan" because they wanted to create a new nation different from Moldavians/Romanians.

There is also in Romania a region called Moldova.

Russians manipulated people of Republic of Moldova and washed their brains to create a new person, the soviet "Moldovan". The real name in English is Moldavian, in Romanian is Moldovean and in Russian is Molidavanin. So "Moldovan" belongs to no language!

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/1091/moldovan1qp.png

taken from Price, Glanville. Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe. ISBN 0631220399; Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK; April 2000

Very interesting. For those who bother making a click on the link I will cite:

"The name 'Moldovan language' (in Russian, МОЛДaВCKИЙ ЯЗБIK 'moldavskii iazyk'); in Romanian, limbă moldovenească, or, in Cyrillic characters, ЛИMбЗ MOЛДОBeНЯCKЗ was applied in the Soviet Union, as during earlier periods of Russian occupation of the area in question, to the * Romance language used in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (corresponding more or less to the formerly Romanian territory of Bessarabia, annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940). In reality, 'Moldavian' is nothing else than the *Romanian language as spoken in Moldavia, i.e. both east of the river Prut in Bessarabia (now the Republic of Moldova) and west of the Prut in that part of the former province that remains as part of Romania. Claims made in the post-Second World War period by the Soviet linguists that 'Moldavian' should be recognized as a distinct Romance language were not taken into seriously by western scholars. Under Soviet domination, the *Cyrillic alphabet was in the use in the Moldavian SSR until the passing of a law on 31 August 1989 (i.e. before the break-up of the Soviet Union) proclaiming Moldavian as the official language of the Republic and the use of Latin script. Apart from a few lexical differences (mainly technical terms borrowed from Russian rather than, as in standard Romanian, from western languages), the written language was thenceforth indistinguishable from that in use in Romania and moves are afoot to harmonize the technical terminology of Moldova with that adopted in Romanian specialized dictionaries. After the Republic of Moldova declared its independence of the Soviet Union in 1991, its Constitution (1994) declared that the official language was limba moldoveneasca 'the Moldavian language'. At the time of writing, moves to have this amended to 'limba română' the Romanian language have not yet succeeded.

Heitmann, K., 1989, Moldauisch. In Holtus, G., Metzeltin, M. and Schmitt, C. (eds), Lexicon der Romanschinen Linguistik, Tübingen, vol 3. 508-21.

GLANVILLE PRICE"

Even at the internationally level (officially) is recognized that in Moldova the people speak romanian. Just for your record the US State Dept. (their foreign office), the french ministry of foreign affairs(France), the UK foreign office (UK), the german ministry of foreign affairs (Germany) are stating one think: in Moldova it is spoken romanian. romanian is the official language even if the name is moldovan. For the others motivated "moldovan language" followers please check the links:

• German Foreign Ministry, Germany

• http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/de/laenderinfos/laender/laender_ausgabe_html?type_id=2&land_id=113

• US State Department, USA

• http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+md0027) ("..Stalin justified the creation of the Moldavian SSR by claiming that a distinct "Moldavian" language was an indicator that "Moldavians" were a separate nationality from the Romanians in Romania....")

• France – Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres

• http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/pays-zones-geo_833/moldavie_468/presentation-moldavie_1001/donnees-generales_23177.html

• UK – Foreign & Commonwealth Office

• http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019672579768

Others except the Russian are in the same manner. All the western powers refuse the russification attempts.

Lately were discovered some facts that prove that the theory of the both languages romanian and "moldovan" - was prefab since the 1812-1918. Some important aspects of the problematics: functioning of the romanian language in the sphere of the laic education system from Bessarabia of the year 1812-1918, the attempts to codyfing the romanian language in conditions of a linguistic situations, causes that determined to degradation of the language compared with spoken romanian on the right side of the river Prut, taking out the name "romanian" and introducing the term "limba moldoveneasca", the intention of the tsarist government "to create a dialect neared to the slavic language".

In the first years of russian occupation (after 1812), because 95% of the population being romanians which they knew only their mother tongue, romanian was admitted as an official language in the institutions of Bessarabia, used along with russian. Gradually the russian language win importance. According to the dates offered by the Dept. for ruling the Bessarabia from 1828, the papers from bureau were held only in russian, and around 1835 it is established a term of 7 years time in which the state institutions will still accept acts in romanian language. As concerning the education, romanian was admitted as language of teaching only until 1842, after that being taught as a separate object. Thus, at the theological Seminar of Chişinău, romanian language is found on the list of compulsory subjects, with 10 hours weekly, until 1863, when the department of romanian is closed for good. At the highschool no. 1 from Chişinău the pupils had the right to choose between romanian and german or between romanian and greek until 9th of Feb. 1866, when the state counselor of the russian government interdicts teaching of the romanian language because the pupils "know this language in the practical mode, and its teaching follows other goals". Around 1871, the tsar published an ucaz "On the suspension of teaching the romanian language in the schools from Besserabia", because "In russian Empire are not taught local speeches".

Two examples of the identity were given: (one is from the constitution of both countries – see the identity)

The example below demonstrates that a formal text in Romanian and Moldovan may be completely identical, the only difference being the spelling of the î vowel in the word vântul. The colloquial languages show more difference, which varies over the area.

Moldavian	Romanian	English
Vocala este un sunet din vorbirea omului, făcut cu trecerea sonoră, liberă şi fără piedică, a vîntului prin canalul sonor (compus din coardele vocale şi întreaga gură) sau un semn grafic care reprezintă un atare sunet.	Vocala este un sunet din vorbirea omului, făcut cu trecerea sonoră, liberă şi fără piedică, a vântului prin canalul sonor (compus din coardele vocale şi întreaga gură) sau un semn grafic care reprezintă un atare sunet.	The vowel is a sound in human speech, made by the sonorous, free and unhindered passing of the air through the sound channel (composed of the vocal chords and the whole mouth) or a graphic symbol corresponding to that sound.
Aşa bunăoară, avem şase vocale ce se fac cu vîntul ce trece prin gură, unde limba poate să se afle într-un loc sau altul şi buzele pot să stea deschise un soi sau altul.	Aşa bunăoară, avem şase vocale ce se fac cu vântul ce trece prin gură, unde limba poate să se afle într-un loc sau altul şi buzele pot să stea deschise un soi sau altul.	This way, we have six vowels that are produced by the air passing through the mouth, where the tongue can be in one place or another and the lips can be opened in one way or another.
Vocalele pot să fie pronunţate singure sau împreună cu semivocale sau consoane.	Vocalele pot să fie pronunţate singure sau împreună cu semivocale sau consoane.	The vowels can be pronounced alone or together with semivowels or consonants.

Second example is taken from the Constitution of Moldova and Romania. The identity is more than obvious.

so called Moldavian	Romanian	English
TITLUL I: Principii Generale	TITLUL I Principii Generale	FIRST TITLE: General Principles
Articolul 1 Statul Republica Moldova	Articol 1 Statul român	Article 1 (Romanian/Republic of Moldova State)
(1) Republica Moldova este un stat suveran şi independent, unitar şi indivizibil.	(1) România este stat naţional, suveran şi independent, unitar şi indivizibil.	(1) Romania/Republic of Moldova is a national, independent, unity and undestructible state.
2) Forma de guvernămînt a statului este republica.	(2) Forma de guvernământ a statului român este republica.	(2) The form of the guvernment of the state is republic.
(3) Republica Moldova este un stat de drept, democratic, în care demnitatea omului, drepturile şi libertăţile ...	(3) România este stat de drept, democratic şi social, în care demnitatea omului, drepturile şi libertăţile ...	Romania/Republic of Moldova is a state of low, democratic, in which the human dignity, rights and liberties...
[[8]]	[[9]]	Links to the official page of Constitution for both countries

As you can obvious see from these examples they are identical. We speak here about one language. But they Mikkalai and Node_ue don't accept such examples and they constantly delete them without any argument. They delete them because the examples demonstrates all …

Need your help in proofreading and categorizing this article. --Ghirlandajo 17:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Despotate of Epirus; I named the last two rulers of Epirus from the Serbian Nemanjid dinasty; however, they ruled as Tsars (Emperors), so Epirus became a Tsardom (Empire) and the article is about the Despotate... HolyRomanEmperor 19:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think I was you going to ask you, to join an edit war? :)))) HolyRomanEmperor 14:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But, when the Sero-Albano-Greco-Bulgarian Emperor Stephanos Dushan the mighty died, his son, Urosh the weak was a weak ruler, and so a branch of the house of Nemanjic started an (independent) Epirian Empire. HolyRomanEmperor 16:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Yes, thank you. --FocalPoint 22:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are not interested in Byzantine/Balkan history as I thought. Sorry that I bothered you. HolyRomanEmperor 18:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am always nice to administrators and so I am pointing out that I have reinstated Lord of the Manor as a separate article. I believe that people who would want to know what it meant, including its modern status, would find a separate article more informative than the more general artcle on Manorialism. On reading the new article, I hope you agree. JMcC 10:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello colleague, I just completed Bardas Sklerus and Bardas Phocas but have a problem with images to illustrate. If you are aware of any artistic representations of these two, please let me know. TIA, Ghirlandajo 14:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You happened to be around right after I used the sandbox. Is it a coincidence? I've seen you before. (Do you remember where?)

Btw, so you know, I found a brand-new purpose on Wikipedia, and that is redirecting possible & common spelling mistakes to the article of the correct spelling. Somehow, I find that fun, so I hope it'll replace vandalizing articles (which is funny to some, but disruptive to others.) Take a look in my history- I've created many spelling error redirects already. It feels like a new awakening for me. You know, an Epiphany if you will. I hope my spelling error redirects make a significant difference.

--Shultz 02:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a small world after all? I thought Wikipedia has grown so big, it would be exceedingly rare to cross random paths twice! How many admins are registered with WP right now, anyway?

And now I remember our last conversation. You found "Kim Il-sung City" by looking through the most recently created articles, and I thought you were stalking me because I didn't know there was a "most recently created articles" page. Now, occurrences of "Kim Il-sung City" simply redirects to Kim Il-Sung, the father of one of the most brutal dictators to rule anywhere on Earth!

Now, my days of de-constructive vandalism are over (at least I hope it stays that way), now that I redirect spelling errors. See my contribution history? What do you think? So far so good? I hope my new activities serves the site well!

--Shultz 03:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you deleted the user page for the account Sonic the Hedgehog Pairings. Why? It was a user page (by the way I'm not behind it). Your cited reason for deletion makes it sound like you thought it was an article. Yeltensic42.618 17:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no access to the deleted userpage, but from mention of it on the Sonic talkpage, it sounds like it was used for discussing the Sonic article...which I think would fall under the umbrella of contributing to Wikipedia (unless there's something I don't know about the page). Yeltensic42.618 19:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing a look into why it was deleted...I only heard about this from Darth Katana X, so that would explain the one-sided perspective I was given. Yeltensic42.618 21:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at recent developments of a certain anon under accounts user:213.216.199.2 and user: 213.216.199.10 in Varangian and Cwen.

I admit I am not an expert, but I still find it strange that I have never ever read about this before. What is it? a new theory? An elaborate hoax? This anon removed the tag of user:Foofy ("not verified"), but didn't provide any sources or ext links. This makes me extremely suspicious. mikka (t) 18:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the IP of my high school, if it is blocked due to the careless vandalizing of articles by the more idiotic students, the students who use Wikipedia for research will be being punished without just cause. Simply take have our editing privileges taken away, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.32.208.233 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

So that there is no confusion, a block from Wikipedia is merely a block from editing privileges. You and other students on your school's network will be able to read articles as usual. Hall Monitor 19:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, very good then. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.32.208.233 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you started this page, but I see many times the vocative. This is always thesame as the nominative, only not in the group who's ending on -us. Maybe you can let it out of the page. Bye, Joelvt 19:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC) (from holland;))[reply]

I don't know if you started this page, but I see many times the vocative. This is always thesame as the nominative, only not in the group who's ending on -us. Maybe you can let it out of the page. Bye, Joelvt 19:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC) (from holland;))[reply]

I mean the page latin grammar

I have 1 very active person which demand that Mehmed II has married daughter of Demetrius Palaeologus. My only source for that last years of Morea is Gibbon which say against that. Can you please look about that because is crazy. Intention of that writer is situation in which Demetrius is father-in-law of Mehmed which is becoming legal heir of Byzantium. rjecina

I just noticed you changed my googlesque "did you mean ...?" page to a redirect. I'm fine with that, in retrospect its a better way to go. But i was wondering, how did you manage to edit the newly created page just seconds after i created it? Random luck or.. something else? I'm just curious. Fresheneesz 06:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Athelstanus is totally vandalising my work! Help me block him. I've tried, but this place is not very helpfull to non-tekies! Skull 'n' Femurs 01:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

....most definitely was not French. Thanks for catching that - I don't know how I got that in there, as my source, right in front of me, said "born in the east about 1130." However, it is true he was in France at the time of the Battle of Ascalon, and it was there that he wrote his account of the event.DonaNobisPacem 08:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I goofed on the times of writing. As for the Damascene chronicler - Barber, in "The New Knighthood," writes that no Muslim source even mentions the role of the Templars at Ascalon, but Ibn al-Qalanisi does mention the tower and the breach, as preliminaries to the fall of the city. Barber also interprets the fact that the city capitulated one week later as suggesting the Franks weren't set back as much as William implied. In his notes, he does write that Ibn al-Athir recorded that a Frankish attack was repulsed, and following that the beseigers almost gave up.

One point Barber constantly makes in the book is that William often wrote to contrast the early poverty and piety of the Templars (which he saw as good in the beginning) with their perceived greed and avarice at the time of his writing the chronicle; and thus his interpretations/relating of events has to be treated with caution. What's your take on this? And your take on Barber, if you're familiar with his works on the Templars?DonaNobisPacem 08:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have reason to believe that a small group of people (no more than two or three) have been using Wikipedia as a soap box to promote a narrow, far-right agenda on several inter-related articles. I have explained by position on Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost, in a section marked "Observations". This is potentially a matter of some importance for Wikipedia's credibility. If you have the time, could you please look this over. CJCurrie 17:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, we just both eliminated that extraneous material at Alexander III (emperor) almost simultaneously. You're right, it is interesting that someone might think that (A. the G. was also A. the 3rd of Macedon, after all). This gets back to a question I posted on the Byzantine Alex's talk page, which is: who were Alexander I and II in the Roman sequence? Would a disambig be in order? --Jfruh 21:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman Emp Alex I, is better known as Alexander Severus, and number II was Domitius Alexander, who is generally considered a Usurper rather than an actual emperor. right?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings fellow Wikipedian and Military historian! My friend Philx and I have written an article on Byzantine battle tactics. As the acknowledged expert here on all matters Byzantine, we would appreciate it if you give it a look. Please keep in mind, we were only doing a general overview as opposed to a more detailed survey. I fear our Wiki-Fu is not yet up to such an endevor ;> Thanks for your time and attention --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are being modest, sir. Your contributions on Byzantine history and politics say otherwise. Regardless, as a highly learned and respected Wikipedian, what do you think of the article?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you sir, Iam truly Embiggened that it meets with your approval! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians by alma mater page. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians by alma mater for instructions. --Cooksey 22:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi, I'm sure you had good intentions, but please do not cut and paste information from other websites. That information is copyrighted and we cannot use it here. You are, of course, welcome to add information in your own words. Thanks, Adam Bishop 21:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)" Ok, sorry about that. I was thinking that the information on a site was for general use. How would I go about adding to the wiki site properly?Kamil101 04:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'd you be interested in a participating in a new Collaboration project that aims at translating good and featured articles in the French Wikipedia to English (much likeSpanish Translation of the Week)? I'm trying to see if there's enough users interested in this project before creating it. Thank you. CG 17:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your positive response about this new collaboration. An ongoing discussion is held here. Feel free to participate. CG 20:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, I've been on the lookout for articles that meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Good articles, & figured you have probably encountered a few in your area of attention. Could you create a list of possible candidates for consideration? Thanks. -- llywrch 20:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those 8 are a start. If you remember, or find, any more please pass them along. Thanks! -- llywrch 00:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adam. Thought I'd explain the monkey business on your essay, User:Adam Bishop/Gdansk vs. Danzig. I initially edited the page so that it would sort under the name "Gdansk vs. Danzig" in the Category:Wikipedia essays. Then I had second thoughts. I think it's best that individual users decide how they want their essays to sort in this category. Sorry for the intrusion. — BrianSmithson 16:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Château de Lusignan, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 18:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking things over, I agree with your redirects of these two articles. However, redirecting them without notice or discussion, and with the note "wow, who cares?" doesn't strike me as the most diplomatic way of doing things. Some people do care. A little courtesy can go a long way.

--Albertane 03:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doushte?

Why did you delete it? :) If its because of vandalism we can lock images you know :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that little quip on the Templar talk page - 166.whatever aka BlueTemplar13 was getting a wee bit personal and off topic, eh? I had decided it was in my best interests not to respond, but I must admit a certain sense of satisfaction when someone else decided to take issue with his comments....DonaNobisPacem 07:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(19:29:27) agtfjott: I wonder if you could take a look at the articles Cwen and Cwenland. It seems like some views are presented which isn't quite correct. There was no known borders in northern scandinavia from the time justifying the claims and also, no cwens were known at Lofoten. Although some centuries later a lot of Finnish peoples (then called cwens) immigrated to those areas around 1850-1900. This is the reason some Norwegian municipalities have names in they're language. (ie Porsanger see also no:Porsanger)

(19:30:01) agtfjott: This propably has some consequences for the varangian article too.

Just curious as to why you removed the Wikisource-addition-x template from Quantum praedecessores and Audita tremendi, as your edit summaries provided no explanation.

Also, there's a discussion on the templates at Template talk:Wikisource-addition-1 if you're interested. Kurt Weber 15:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]