User talk:Srnec

User talk:Srnec/Archive, 10 December 2005–8 January 2008
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 9 January–20 July 2008
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 21 July 2008–23 February 2009
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 24 February 2009–14 August 2009
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 August 2009–14 June 2010
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 June 2010–17 May 2011
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 18 May 2011–15 May 2013
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 16 May 2013–14 March 2014
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 March 2014–28 March 2016
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 29 March 2016–3 March 2018

User:Srnec/DYK

Why are you reverting improvements? Do you have any subject mater expertise on Burkina Faso? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65sugg (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@65sugg: I did not revert any improvements. If you want the article title to change, see the process at WP:RM. —Srnec (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did revert improvements beyond the name change. There's many erroneous and unsourced claims I removed as well as updating for consistent terminology and spelling. 65sugg (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also already did a correct move using the process that you reverted

Move log

18:36, 31 May 2022 65sugg talk contribs moved page List of rulers of Wogodogo to List of rulers of Mogho Naabas (1. Wogodogo is no longer used, if anything it should be Ouagadougou, 2. In present day the Mogho Naaba has no political power and only serves as a traditional ruler, the actual rulers of Ouagadougou would include Mayors and such. 3. This list is really a list of those who have held the title "Mogho Naaba" which in fact predates the existence of Ouagadougou) (revert) 65sugg (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Duchy of Sorrento I am trying to better layout the article, add more recent sources in addition to those already existing. Each phrase will be well referenced and documented. Wait for me to complete the article. --Peter39c (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC) You prefer that I can use a draft in the meantime that I complete the article. --Peter39c (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, I am befuddled by the changes to the disambiguation of Jack Lindsay (Writer) to be a redirect from Jack Lindsay (Writer) back to Jack Lindsay; the same individual. Please explain. (Sir Gerald Edits (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Why do you erase my edition? アステール王子 (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who says she's famous for being a purely female line ancestor of Queen Victoria? This is not a notable fact about her. Or do you have a source that says it is? Srnec (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, “famous“ was an inadequate expression, but she is a “purely“ female line ancestor of all of these big names, Queen Victoria, Wilhelm II, Edward VII, Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, last Queen consort Alexandra and last crown prince Alexei of Russian Empire, Victoria Eugenie, Queen consort of Spain, Ernest Louis of Hesse and by Rhine. I think this is very important fact about hirtory and her. アステール王子 (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But what you think is an important fact is not necessarily what Wikipedia presents as an important fact. Why is lineal descent in the female line of any significance at all? Do any authors say it is? Does any author make the Garsenda–Victoria connection? We need reliable sources, not your own research. —Srnec (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK.I understood. Sorry. アステール王子 (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter of Castile, Lord of Cameros, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belmez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

Hey mate,

I replied to your comment on the talk page of “Carloman of Bavaria”. Would like to get your thoughts on it. Thanks PrinceofFrancia (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Kalfün (Khalfun) was probably of Berber stock", please do research on the Berber role in Sicily.

The Arab dynasty depended on the Berbers heavily and dealt directly with Berber Chiefs & they kept them scattered in frontier towns to avoid revolts, the Berbers in Sicily were Muslim & in alliance with the Dynasty. Inside Palermo lived the Arab minority, protected by Slave soldiers (Serb-Croat), the Berbers were not allowed to amass that close to the palace & commercial centers. In the weaker later stages of the Emirate, Local Berber lords waged their own wars and enslaved Byzantine Siculos (Culturally Greek Christians). Those slaves started appearing in record a few decades after the fall of Bari (mainly sold in North Africa). The Slavic stock in Sicily was probably loyal to the Byzantine faction that invited the Aghlabids over. Aghlabids typical to other Arab dynasties had a large stock of African concubines, they assigned the children of concubines tribal names, Khalfun is mentioned as part of Rabia, making him more than likely the offspring of an African concubine. Mifraq (could possibly be a Slavic soldier slave from Palermo, because he was not addressed with any tribal name by historians who mention his attempts to get recognition as Wali and he might served in the same capacity prior to taking over), Sawdan is the offspring of a Kalbid Arab, unlike Khalfun his tribal name associates him with the competing Kalbids, who later allied with the North African Fatimids. Concubine offspring was the dominant type in the Arab dynasties in Sicily, the early offspring was largely African (Nubian, Ethiopian & more southern Subsaharans), taking Siculo slaves was much more dominant in the later stages of the conquest, Bari is a by-product of the early stage of the conquest. Droveaxle (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khalfun is described as al-Barbari by Baladuri. In Marco Di Branco's words: "era certamente di stirpe berbera". What are your sources? Srnec (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks & Arabs also called Somalis, Darfur & big parts of Sahel as Berber, it wasn't until the 11th century when slave trade started specifying Zanj as the heavier stock Subsaharans, until recent times Somalis and Fur people (Darfur) were called Berber. Hence Berbera in the horn of Africa is still called as such, legacy of Greek & Arab historians who assigned that term (Somali, Sahel & North African Berber). Berber in general were not Slave stock, except Sahel where early trade took in slaves from that region. Zanj later meant Bantu, but at that time it could have included the Africans of Nubia-Chad as it was new lands to recently arrived Arabian Aghlabids.

The Kitama berber (who were involved heavily in Sicily), along with Kalbid Arabs & Greek Siculo slaves played a major role fighting the Aghlabids in Sicily, Tunisia & eventually establishing the Fatimid caliph, Cairo was taken by an army led by a Sicilian Greek Slave, but that era is two centuries after Bari. By then the slave stock became largely Greek-Siculo, the Kitama tribes were the Berber stock from the highlands west of the Tunisian lowlands domianted by the Aghlabids & other Arabs. Those Kitama berber are what we still call Berber today, they entered sicily as an Army along Aghlabids & later changed alliance to Fatmids & eventually expelled out of Sicily via a local Arab-Siculo-Saqaliba alliance.

Decide whats the proper word to use, for now I left it as African, it should not be Saracen, Arab or Berber as those words mean something else today, also Zanj of Aghlabid times (Sahel African-Nubians), is not the same Zanj of the later slave trade era, (more Bantu). Most the material written about Bari in later times are either religious church mentions or later Muslim accounts both with time specific agendas, not exactly accurate. Droveaxle (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Droveaxle: I understand what you are saying, but you will have to cite some sources to change the page, since reliable sources have been provided for "Berber". What are your sources for the ethnic composition of the Islamic armies operating in Sicily and southern Italy? Srnec (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need some backup on Talk:Holy Roman Empire. Polish nationalist are a kind of people really hard to explain the truth to.Ernio48 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Please don't revert my editation, which I added infobox into the article, and than you removed. Kingdom of Germany is one of the three kingdoms (latin Tria Regna), which were parts of the early medieval Holy Roman Empire. Kingdom of Italy and Kingdom of Arles (Burgundy) are have also own infoboxes, Germany was the only one that did not, and it is that reason, why I added infobox to Germany, although the informations there are very similar as Holy Roman Empire, but it is not without purpose. If you find and declare, that some informations there are untrue, please delete them or change, it is a better way by my point of view. Dragovit (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for that article to have an infobox, as is clear from the edit history and the talk page. The page is watched, so you could bring it up again on the talk page and see where it goes. Srnec (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ordos culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Srnec,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I genuinely had no idea there was no such page in that book. To my shame, I didn't check to verify. Just found it in another article and took it for granted. I feel quite embarrassed now. Again, sorry for the bother. Torpilorul (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, I just noticed these changes in the article on Alfonso VI of León and Castile. In the second paragraph a "why" re Reilly's statement about his age when he died. In the third paragraph a "how" re the charter signed by all the children except Elvira as mentioned by the source used, Sánchez Candeira (he does not elaborate, just says that they signed the document...even if they were too young to sign, this was common practice at that time and almost newborns appear confirming charters). How do I respond to the second one? I can't answer for the first since I don't have Reilly's work. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC) (just think that those paragraphs are very well referenced and it's a shame to have those templates).[reply]

I'm not really sure why Reilly (and Salvador Martínez) have the Crónica de Sahagún saying "setenta y dos" where it clearly says "sesenta y dos" (at least in the Puyol edition). Salvador Martínez even quotes it at length (with setenta). Perhaps there is a reason. I have for now put it in a note.

I think the "how" was just about what action "confirm" entailed. I have replaced the word with "signed". Srnec (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs Timeline: This month in World War I

A tag has been placed on Ƣalib requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Srnec. I performed the technical move that you requested. Now that it's done, could you check the Wikidata entry to see if it looks right to you? I am not sure that all the different Wikipedias are linking to the same person. Is this guy the same as the Pfalzgraf von Lothringen? The entry in Neue Deutsche Biographie is cited, but the body of this article doesn't mention Lothringen. The German Wikipedia calls this guy de:Siegfried I. (Weimar-Orlamünde). On the German Wikipedia, the succession boxes appear to be more complete. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EdJohnston. Yes, the links look correct. Our article says "count palatine of the Rhineland" (the German says Pfalzgraf bei Rhein), but some sources call the county Lotharingia (Lothringen). Same thing. I made Siegfried I of Weimar-Orlamünde a redirect already. Srnec (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Passaleão incident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands it's a copyright violation, containing so far as I can see only unattributed material from other articles. The edit summary "remove redirect" doesn't seem quite accurate, as the editor also added all the current content. Any merger requires sorting out the copying within Wikipedia issue. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to revert, but the original redirect target was wrong (the 'Omani Empire' certainly doesn't begin in 1820 and last until 1970) and the alternative target, Sultanate of Muscat, was a stub. That's the only reason I left it as is and just put a tag on it. What articles is the text from? Srnec (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'm not watching your page. Oh hell, take a look at this edit. He left the source as Beck, which is here but replaced the text with copyright material from here. The new text isn't in Beck at all. Doesn't make me trust the editor. Earwig shows more.[1] Doug Weller talk 12:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have pinged you. Anyways, it seems that the material has been removed. Still, there is a major problem with our coverage. I have no idea why 1820 is the date that separates our Sultanate of Muscat from our Muscat and Oman. The former does not even mention Zanzibar, which presumably was what prodded our new editor into action. I don't know if "Omani Empire" is the best title, and I do not believe three articles are necessary, but currently these two articles are not much help. One day... Srnec (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Dianaa reverted it back to the redirect due to all the copyright material in it, and the editor who added it was rather unhappy.[2] Doug Weller talk 13:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doge of Venice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doux (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doge of Venice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexios III (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of what makes me very nervous about Wikipedia texts. First, that amazing changes are unreviewed. Second, that those are seemingly never reviewed, given for example here that word 'modern' survived 5+ years. Perhaps some of form of adoption of articles needs to be enforced on editors, adopting one from a list of important articles, to check on regularly for egregious encrustations. Thank you for fixing this one. Shenme (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Indy Beetle and Nick-D on the Katangese Gendarmes and India during World War II Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at two important treaties of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Could I have your thoughts on this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Montarg is correct. Chris Given-Wilson's biography Henry IV (Yale University Press), p. 32, n. 43, says that the child was his sister-in-law's. He cites the same PRO source that Ward, Women of the English Nobility and Gentry, 1066–1500, p. 69, cites. You can read it there; it doesn't name Henry or Mary de Bohun. Given-Wilson considers identifying the 'lady' in the source with Mary a misreading. Given-Wilson directs me to Ian Mortimer, The Fears of Henry IV, app. III, for more information. Mortimer gives the source of the error as Wylie's biography of Henry IV from 1884. Srnec (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abu-l-Qasim Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn Qasi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Niebla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pre-colonial Timor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Song Shi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the use of so-called "substandard" manpower in armies Interview: On the Bugle turning 150 (issues that is!) Op-ed: TomStar81 on the collapse of empires at the close of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pedor Manrique's seal, reverse.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lordship of Tyre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibelin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Renaud II de Pons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montignac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of kings of Cimmerian Bosporus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lygdamis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Duke of Salerno.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Satisfies gng

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

1l2l3k (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Srnec, I was wondering if you could help me work out if it was Gaillard II of Durfort, Gaillard III of Durfort or Gaillard IV of Durfort that was Seneschal of Gascony? A Google search has a hit from UK Nation Archives which states Gaillard III of Durfort. This french text also supports Gaillard III. On the Seneschal of Gascony wiki article it is shown as Galhart II de Durfort (Gaillard II)? Any help would be appreciated. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it. Srnec (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: - Hi, I was wondering whether Gaillard I de Durfort had any other children? I have seen a reference to Marguerite de Durfort who was married to Raimond de Donissan? Not sure if you can confirm this? Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaillard I de Durfort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bordelais (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in wp:ncs does it say that ship names must be preceded by the definite article "the"? Could you point that out? Because why else would you undo that page move and revert all the subsequent corresponding edits? The only relevant direction I could find at wp:ncs was under "Using ship names in articles";

Do not use the definite article ("the") before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time; e.g., at the beginning of the lead section.

Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong.

Even then, what about that says that removing the definite article "the" is so controversial, that an "RM" is needed? - wolf 01:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: I never said that ship names must be preceded by the definite article, only that the naming convention does not preclude its use. In my opinion, "Capture of the Anne" reads much more naturally and comprehensibly as an article title than "Capture of Anne", wherein the italics are doing a little too much work. If you believe otherwise, RM it and see what others think. You were not wrong to move the article. I am not saying you should have known it required an RM. I'm saying it requires an RM now that I've reverted it. Srnec (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was already brought up at WT:MILHIST#Capture of the Anne. I raised the issue of "the" being in the title a week ago. No one spoke up in favour of retaining it, but a couple editors were in favour of removing it, so I did. Now, knowing that wt:milhist is much more highly trafficked than the "Capture of Anne" talk page, and keeping in mind that "the" preceding ship names is regularly removed from numerous ship articles by numerous editors, is that sufficient enough for you to support the move, or do you still want to insist on an RM? - wolf 02:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you already sought a local consensus, why not seek a broader consensus? Srnec (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering the guideline clearly states; "Do not use the definite article ("the") ... when introducing a ship for the first time;, and obviously the ship is "introduced" in the article title in this case, I'm wondering why an RM would even be necessary, when we already have a guideline, guiding towards the correct action to take. So are you hoping for a consensus that will go against the guideline? What then? And, are you even confident that there will be a consensus against the move (and the guideline)...? If not, then why insist on this exercise? - wolf 04:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the community at large thinks. For that we'd need an RM. I have given my reasons why I think the current title (with "the") is better. In an RM, I would re-state them. Do you think the guideline as interpreted by you has community consensus or not? If it does, then what's the problem with confirming it? I for one do not think the guideline was intended for descriptive titles. For example, we have an FA with the clearly non-guideline title Sinking of the RMS Titanic, while Passengers of the RMS Titanic and Wreck of the RMS Titanic are GAs. Then there's Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, Sinking of the RMS Lusitania and Sinking of the Petrel. To be fair, there is Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse and other articles that conform to the guidelines as you see it. All in all, it isn't clear that your interpretation has consensus. Srnec (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have an odd way of using the word "interpretation". For example, you say you think "the" should be included in the title because "it reads more naturally", that is a personal preference. When I quoted the guidelines, that was a stating a fact. Neither are "interpretations". That said, yes... I am aware that there a some articles that currently violate the guidelines. I was actually about to correct one (another one, actually) when you reverted "Capture of Anne". There are plenty of GA/FA articles that contain mistakes, some were even hoaxes). "Good" and "Featured" do not mean "perfect".

There are reasons why we have these guidelines, one of them being that "Capture of the Anne" looks and sounds incredibly clunky, and it's the reason why we don't have articles titled; "Capture of the Rome", "Capture of the Adolf Eichmann", "Assassination of the Julius Caesar" or "Death of the Osama bin Laden". Having the definite article "the" preceding a name in simply improper, whether it is the name of a person or a boat (which are usually named after people as it is).

But, you seem quite intransigent about the issue, so I will start an RM. But, really, as the page move was supprted by a guideline, I personally think you should self-revert all the changes, then start an RfC on the WP:NCS talk page. (But, I don't see you doing that... unless the RM doesn't go your way.) - wolf 02:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

G'day Srnec. I was wondering whether you could asist me with two questions.

1. Did Gaillard I de Durfort had any other children? I have seen a reference to Marguerite de Durfort who was married to Raimond de Donissan? Not sure if you can confirm this?

2. Is Alexandre (Anissant) de Caumont, Lord of Sainte Bazeille correct spelling or is it Alixandre de Caumont? This Caumont was active during 1346 on the side of the English with Durfort.

Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the first question earlier, but forgot to respond. No, I have not yet found a source for any other children than Gaillard II. As for the second, my guess is that "Alixandre" is a contemporary spelling, while "Alexandre" is just a regularized modern French spelling. If there is an article at one form, there should be a redirect from the other. (I added a red link to Alixandre de Caumont at Lancaster's chevauchée, based on the spelling in Gribit.) Srnec (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok and thanks, I will review sources and create Alixandre de Caumont soon. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at [[3]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Origin of the Romanians. Thank you.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited De Casibus Virorum Illustrium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constantine III (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Srnec! Thanks for the correction. I just would like to ask, if you have easy access, the pages where you got the dates 28 June and 8 July mentioned in the subsection Supreme commander. The Spanish version of the article mentions, with sources, 15 July as the day that Ghalib announced his victory, but there is no mention to other dates. Cheers!--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maragm (talk · contribs) and Rowanwindwhistler (talk · contribs), maybe you both can help.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huici Miranda (i.e., the Encyclopaedia of Islam article) says: In 364/974 he undertook a carefully prepared expedition against the Castile-Navarre-Leon coalition in which he beat firstly the Christian allies under the walls of Gormaz, then count Garcia Fernandez at Langa, south of the Duero, on 25 Shawwal 364/8 July 975. Makki just puts the "defeats" in "Shawwal 364/June 975". I am not sure where I got the date "28 June" or why I did not cite a source for it, since I cannot find it in Kennedy. Perhaps my reference to Ibn Hayyan was incomplete... because the source I have now added for the date of 28 June (Pick) does indeed cite it to Ibn Hayyan. I can also confirm that Meouak, as per the Spanish Wiki, says that Córdoba received a report about the victories on 15 July. Meouak does not provide details about the victories, however. Srnec (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and gave you +extendedmover on this account since you post to RM/TR often enough that it would likely be helpful. WP:PAGESWAP is a script that lets you move pages over redirects. If you don't want it, let me know, but I thought I'd save the bureaucracy of my suggesting it and you going to PERM. Standard comments about reading the guidelines for use at WP:PGM and using WP:RM if the move might be controversial. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Srnec (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Makk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meroitic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

Hey there Srnec. Would you care to elaborate [4]? Per Riccioli, [5], the french offensive started on March 23, before that the front was faily static and mostly manned by US troops. If the scope is extended back to August 1944, the article might lose its focus, I feel. Regards --RD47 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You may revert if you'd like. Srnec (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, man. So what happens now with Talk:Burma_National_Army#Requested_move_1_January_2019 now that the 7 days have run out? Will it be merged? renamed? Only discussion was a "support" from you, so it seems to be the "winner"...?
--Havsjö (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)