User talk:Walrasiad

I've noticed the quality work you've put into the early-Islamic battle articles. I just want to say your contributions have brought quality to these topic areas on Wikipedia. On personal note I started the Battle of the nobles article, and I'm pleased to see that you have improved it greatly -- really nice work on the Berber Revolt article as well.  Burningview  ✉ 02:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve a barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		Nice work on the articles you've been contributing too  Burningview  ✉ 02:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Map berber revolt.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vasco Da Gama  

  Hi I am 817540ndahlin and i am going to talk about vasco da gama. Today I got a school project to do and it has to be about an explorer so I chose Vasco Da Gama. Please scroll down for more information. 

I would actually respectfully disagree. I will say that I know nothing about the Portuguese armadas, but putting the leader in the armada is probably unnecessary. Under your rationale, it would be better to avoid numbering the armada altogether and name it something like Nova Expedition, 1501. Lord Nelson is almost more famous than his victory at trafalgar, so your rationale would tell me to rename his fleet Nelson, 1805. Wikipedia prefers to call something by its proper name, so the move automatically created a redirect. Response? (If I come off sounding mean, don't take it personally, thanks). --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 01:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

The armadas from Portugal to India were yearly from 1500 onwards. I intend to create entries for them all (at least until I run out of energy). The numbering is a useful way of distinguishing and referencing without risk of confusion.

Unfortunately, the numbering is not as well-known to laypersons. They are more used to hearing of "Cabral's 1500 expedition to India (and Brazil)" than the "2nd India Armada. So I was tempted to simply use the captain and year for article title, rather than numbering the armada, to make it easier for people to recognize in a wiki search.

Unfortunately, the numbering is far more convenient in sorting out a hundred or so different fleets, many of which contained the same admirals and captains of other fleets. It is certainly much more convenient in the text, gives a better sense of order, particularly as several armadas could be out at sea at once, and stray squadrons and ships from one fleet criss-crossed with another. To refer to date & captain every time the fleet is mentioned in the text becomes just too awkward & cumbersome. e.g. which sounds better:

• "Pero de Ataide, who came with the Fifth Armada and was assigned the coastal patrol off Angediva, was surprised to encounter the vanguard of the arriving Eighth Armada in 1507, knowing that the return fleet of the Seventh Armada was still loading up in India."

One name (Pero de Ataide), one date (1507), and a good sense of what's going on (this next armada arrived sooner than expected)

• Or "Pero de Ataide, who arrived in India as part of the 1503 expedition of Afonso de Albuquerque (Albuquerque's first expedition) and was assigned the coastal patrol off Angediva, was surprised to encounter the vanguard of the Tristao da Cunha's 1506 expedition (vanguard was Albuquerque's squadron of Cunha's expedition, thus is also referred to as Albuquerque's second (1506) expedition to India, Cunha himself was still back in Malindi) in 1507, knowing the return fleet of Francisco de Almeida's 1505 expedition (but not Almeida himself, as he would stay behind; return fleet of that armada was placed under the command of Vasco de Ataide, a captain who came with the Albergaria fleet of 1504) was still loading up in India."

Many names (Pero de Ataide, Albuquerque, Cunha, Almeida, Vasco de Ataide, Albergaria), many dates (1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507) and, in that thicket, less clarity over what the issue is.

(OK, this may seem like a deliberately extreme example of cumbersomeness, but it is not too unusual; the text does get that cluttered pretty quickly.)

It is for this reason - for clarity of the article writing - that I am reluctant to abandon the armada numbering.

However, at the same time, it would be a disservice to Wiki searchers to simply restrict the article titles to armada numbers, e.g. someone looking for Cabral's famous 1500 expedition which discovered Brazil might skip over an article simply entitled "2nd Portuguese India Armada". Or someone looking for Nova's discovery of Ascension and St. Helena islands might skip over "3rd Portuguese India Armada".

I admit that "2nd Portuguese India Armada (Cabral, 1500)" is itself not a happy solution. But it is the best compromise I could think of.

[I considered an alternative, "Cabral's 1500 Expedition to India (2nd Armada)", but that made it seem that it was Cabral's own second trip to India, rather than the second fleet from Portugal altogether. And quickly becomes deceptive when an armada is decomposed into squadrons with different destinations - Africa, India, Moluccas, Japan. Although such an armada is still formally known as an "India Armada", it is not necessarily all going to India proper)

Now, I am willing to be persuaded to something else. I am willing to reconsider the titles. But I'd like a simple system that can be applied consistently.

P.S. - I intend to use the same system for English East India Company fleets - first, second, third, etc., along with the captain's name & year, e.g.

• First EIC Fleet (Lancaster, 1601)
• Second EIC Fleet (Middleton, 1604)
• Third EIC Fleet (Keeling, 1607)
• Fourth EIC Fleet (Sharpeigh, 1608)

and so on.

P.P.S. - The nightmare will come when I do the Dutch fleets from 1598-1605. Multiple private companies, each sending out gigantic fleets simultaneously, and, worse yet, through a flurry of mergers & acquisitions, changing company names while the fleets are still out at sea. I shudder at how the titles will look. :o )

Wow. I wasn't expecting such a thorough answer! Alright, that sounds great! Tell me if you want me to help in anyway! Thanks! --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 04:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to let you know I've nominated the above page for DYK. Cheers. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :)

On 11 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Diogo Fernandes Pereira, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your notice and for the editing on João da Nova article: I love the subject João da Nova-Albuquerque's relation and it is a pleasure to see da Novas's article improved. I'm presently very short of time to participate in editing, but would love to dig more sources to help you. I remember to have relied on Commentarios and Castanheda's "História do descobrimento e conquista da Índia pelos portugueses book II", of which I have a copy, while researching Albuquerque's biography. You're right: I downplayed their fights, but I remember to have noticed that the heavier words towards João da Nova's actions came from Brás de Albuquerque (who showed rightfully angry at the impact of those acts on his father) and not from Albuquerque himself, who even when arresting da Nova, and after a beard's grabbing fight called at most João da Nova as a galician "lambareiro", always dismissing his actions as that of an impulsive galician who sometimes got carried away. In his letters complaining of the Portuguese administrators, Albuquerque gave the example of Bartolomeo Marchionni's men as examples of great value - and da Nova was one of them. Also João da Nova departed from Ormuz only after loyally asking Albuquerque's permission, which he was granted. I will try to re-read Castanheda to remember why I came to this and add sources were and if they fit.--Uxbona (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor Walrasiad, I would like to thank you for your recent editing on the article Joao da Nova. Very good and opportune intervention. Please, do continue expanding, citing and reviewing the article. Your help is very much appreciated. Congratulations ! Best regards, Krenakarore (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Walrasiad, I have been using Wikipedia for as long as I can remember, and I just opened an account to tell you how brilliant and spetacular your work on the Portuguese armadas have been. As a Portuguese, it is basically my one favourite area of history above all others, and I always regretted that it was poorly covered here in Wikipedia. You have done an AMAZING job on all of it, and I have devoured your articles like a book. I'm so elated and happy on what I learned and the quality of your work, that I could kiss you. Truly fantastic. I bow down to you. :)

Please for the love of god, keep it up.

Joltiness (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Francisco de Almeida (1), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ksar es-Seghir at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ksar es-Seghir, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Royal Moroccan Navy is constructing a new naval base at Ksar es-Seghir? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

[laissez-faire] describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.

The word restrictive here is deliberately suggestive. This part of the article is obviously written from the perspective of a laissez-faire apologist. "Free from state intervention" implies zero regulation - not merely zero restrictive regulation. What does restrictive even mean? Ourben (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Free from state intervention' =/= zero regulations. Laissez faire theorists are adamant about the need for, say, State involvement in the protection of property, guarantee of contract, information requirements and transperancy rules (to prevent fraud) and even many are quite active proponents of State intervention to prevent "distraint of trade" (anti-trust regulation), cf. Henry C. Simons 1948, A Positive Program for Laissez Faire. I suppose a better word could be found for "restrictive", but essentially laissez faire theorists promote the minimum regulation necessary to guarantee free competitive exchange, but anything beyond that is considered "restrictive". As for "enforced monopolies" this is a reference to two things - old style commercial charter companies (East India Co. & all that, the bane of Adam Smith, Turgot et al.) and 20th C. government-sanctioned monopolies like nationalized companies, parastatals, public utilities, etc. Some theorists would include copyright and patent protection under this. I don't see either as apologetics, but clarifiers.

P.S. - This is my personal talk page. If you want to continue the discussion, please post it in the Laissez-Faire's article's "discussion" page. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laissez-faire. Its more appropriate there, where others can participate. Walrasiad (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some good work but also some stuff that needs changing and I don't want to have to do it. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS. You need to get rid of the personal comments/opinions. It's not that I don't agree with them, but they just don't belong in the article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, fair enough. I just checked out your changes, and they are indeed an improvement. If there's anything else that stands out, please let me know. As noted in the talk page, I just finished the first couple of sections, and am still working on the remainder, and hope it turns out more careful. Walrasiad (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you look at it again. Anything that looked editorial/personal comment should be removed. If you can find sources saying more or less the same thing, use them with attribution. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it looks ok except I don't think 'we' ever looks good in an encyclopedia. I can see some spots where someone may come along and ask for a citation, but you can't do everything. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dzlinker (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Classical compass winds at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Can I ask that you refrain from personal attacks and patronising other editors as you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Sine

Apart from the personal attacks and patronising language, your construtive comments are highly valued and I will take them on board. Since we are all interested in developing the Kingdom of Sine article, why not work together and make it a better article? There are lots of useful information about Sine e.g. its history, culture, people etc, and we have not even scratch the surface. I appreciate the fact that not everything can be included in the article, but there is more to Sine than the 'one liners' in the article, which provides little information about Sine. I will be more than happy to co-operate with you if you are so willing.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.235.27 (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same person? Why don't you set up an account? I would love to work together to improve this article. I am not against putting in a lot of information - it was just the manner in which such information was inserted - chaotically, disorganized, and especially those random bolded phrases made it seem like a vandalism attempt (esp. that "only true African religion" thing). Perhaps I was too impatient. But I'd be happy to start anew. Sine & Saloum certainly deserve a more extensive treatment. Walrasiad (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is wonderful. I would hate to be accused of vandalising or disrupting the Kingdom of Sine or Saloum articles. That is the last thing I would want to do and apologies if I gave you that impression. By combining our efforts we can make both the Sine and Saloum articles valuable resources. If it is ok with you, I would like to add more info with citations etc (time permitting) and you can have a look at it and assist where necessary before they are included in the final articles.

Cheers86.144.235.27 (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Re: Álvaro Vaz de Almada, 1st Count of Avranches)

Hello Walrasiad. Thanks for responding.

My primary reference for the Almada/English descendency is the book, "The Almadas of Alamos, 1783-1867," by Albert Stagg and published by the University of Arizona Press in 1978.

There is also the article, "Three Garters in One Family," by Jorge Oliveira Marques, published in the Anglo-Portuguese Newspaper in 1973.

The former mentions the name Saher of Archelle, while Liberche is mentioned in the latter reference.

There is a third reference I just remembered, and that is the book, "Armorial Lusitano," a rare compendium of Portuguese Coats of Arms and family histories.

I am assuming Saher and Liberche are one in the same, however I have no empirical evidence to substantiate this supposition.

What sort of resources, Walrasiad, do you have about the Almada family?

Thanks!

Twineagles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twineagles (talk • contribs) 11:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Walrasiad. Thanks for reviewing the Bwana Mkubwa dyk nom. I've done some re-wording within the article and there's now an ALT1 at dyk. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Classical compass winds, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that today you only really need to remember four names (North, East, South, West) to get around, but ancient Greeks and Romans had to memorize 12 different wind names to orient themselves? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Tremembé (district of São Paulo). Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rule of Marteloio, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Italian sailors in the Middle Ages used trigonometry and the rule of Marteloio (pictured) to navigate at sea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/Rule of Marteloio.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through your Rule of Marteloio after it appeared on DYK, which then led me to other DYK submissions of yours. I must say that I am very impressed by the quality and depth of the articles - well done. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw that you wanted to ask for a community ban on Bokpasa.

Here are some discussions that prove that he doesn't care about sources or consensus, and that his main goal is to include his OR on Morocco related pages on WP (the list is as long as the time we spent trying to convince him to stop his tendentious edits):

• Talk:Almoravid_dynasty#Almoravides_are_not_Morroco
• Talk:List_of_rulers_of_Morocco#Morocco_was_founded_by_the_Alaouites.3F.21
• Talk:List_of_rulers_of_Morocco#Morocco_versus_History
• Talk:History_of_Morocco (sections 4 to 16!!)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saadi_Kingdom_of_Fez (note Ecemaml's comment / Ecemaml is an admin in the ES.WP)
• Talk:Muhammad_al-Idrisi#Muslim_vs._Morroco
• User_talk:FayssalF/Archive_K#User:Bokpasa

Maybe reminding the previous case should help too:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive137#User:Bokpasa_tendious_editing_and_personal_attacks

Reminding that he was indefinitely blocked on ES.WP and FR.WP for the same reasons on the same articles ([1] & [2]), and already blocked two time on En.WP for (again) the same reasons ([3])

And at last the archives of his own talk page: [4] [5] [6]

I think than a community ban is the unique solution... unfortunately, however, since I already tried to make admins intervening to prevent any further vandalism by Bokpasa, but that I got no answer, I prefer not asking for that by myself.

I hope that these links can help.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you tried to eliminate history?, because if you want I can put Morocco conquest Spain and France, Russia....Luciusmaximus (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to eliminate you, Bokpasa. Walrasiad (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rofl, this is absolutely unbelievable!!

Btw, thx for the checkuser case, I'm waiting for its results to report him to Fr.Wiki and Sp.Wiki.

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to admit that Bokpasa's edit summaries and posts to tk pages are funny :D --Tachfin (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tachfin & Omar-Toons, thanks for your support([[7]]). Well, I feel we can relax for a couple of weeks. I have no intention of crowing. I am just saddened that Bokpasa's contributions have lately been limited to just disruptive edits. I just hope he will not resume that behavior when that block elapses. If he is as clever and well-educated as he says, presumably he can apply those gifts more productively to Wikipedia. Walrasiad (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm contacting to request your help: Recently Bokpasa created an article (Taifa of Ceuta), it was speedily deleted but then somebody else came, found a reference to it in google books and recreated the article. Since I'm not an expert on Andalusian history, I wanted to ask you if a Taifa in Ceuta really existed? I've read in "History of Ibn Khaldun" that Ceuta, Tangiers, Malaga and Algeciras belonged to the same Taifa which was governed by the Hammudid dynasty.

Thank you for your help and have a nice day! Tachfin (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have enough to disclaim it. Ceuta was certainly part of the Hammudid taifa, and locally governed by a younger brother IIRC. I wouldn't call it a taifa at that point. But the ruling family lost Malaga and Algeciras later, and relocated to Ceuta (c.1056-59). So I guess you can call it taifa of "Ceuta" at that point. I am a little suspicious about the claim it was governed by Berghwata on behalf of the Hammudids - the Berghwata did overrun the place c.1061, but I thought it was directly ruled by Hammudid family up to then. I don't have enough info to disprove it. Walrasiad (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying; Ibn Khaldun mentions a certain "Lagut" (or Laqut in western sources) who was a Berghwata slave that had some prominent role in the Hammudi army. How it was eventually conquered by the Almoravids isn't clear in the original Arabic writing of Ibn khaldun that I'm reading: he mentions two people of the same name (Al-muez) one was an Almoravid prince the other a Berghwati.

Thank you again for your kind help! Tachfin (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - As you are one of the major contributors to the Almoravid dynasty article, I think you may help solve some issues there, your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Almoravid dynasty#NPOV : Arab-Berber self glorification. Thank you. Tachfin (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Em guerras fernandinas, Há-de ser: Cedavi, em português medieval, ou Cedovim, em português actual.

Similarmente, no cap. XXXIX da Crónica de D. Fernando, à actual Cerralbo, no Abadengo espanhol, Fernão Lopes escreveu «Çarralvo».

Mas, se bem que pelo menos dois autores achem que «Çadavi» dever ser «Cedovim», nenhum destes dá a certeza disso. Por acaso, até é: basta ver que fica praticamente na linha recta entre Guimarães, onde Henrique II antes estava, e Bragança, para onde então foi. Acho que dizer tal coisa, desta tal quase «linha recta», dificilmente poderá ser considerado pesquisa original (estou-me a rir). Um grande abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at PhnomPencil's talk page. Hello. You have a new message at PhnomPencil's talk page.

Hello,

I started a discussion on the NPOVN about the exclusion of non-European universities from the List of oldest universities in continuous operation and the replacement of every word "university" by "medersah" on the related article by a single user. I wonder if you can give your opinion there [8] ;)

Omar-Toons (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still need your help in refining and including a better definition of Moor, my issue is I dont have the sources that you have to contribute to better lead. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Vasco da Gama, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cannanore and Malabar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Brazil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tupi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would like to inform you that the NPOV discussion about the List of oldest universities in continuous operation, to which you participated was reopened on the NPOVN.

The current discussion is ongoing on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The List of oldest universities in continuous operation (again).

Regards,
--Omar-Toons (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text copied from a PD source must carry attribution and inline citations, so that it is not seen as plagiarised text.

The difference in readability of the article between the format of the citations you used and those that I used is small. The difference is predominately in the edited form. The advantages of using templates means that the short and long citations are linked together (an click on the short citation takes the reader to the long citation), which from the readers point of view makes them much easier to to verify. If you need any help in understanding how {{sfn}} and {{cite book}} are formatted and work etc, then please ask and I will be pleased to help.

I have not done so, and it would also help the user if you could add the templates {{es icon}} or {{pt icon}} before the {{cite book}} templates depending if the language used in the book is Spanish or Portuguese. -- PBS (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this command useful: Special:PrefixIndex/User:Walrasiad. I have a copy of it under an Icon on my user page, It automatically lists one's sandboxes and other sub pages. -- PBS (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. If there was no Georges in that time in England, maybe it came from Genoa or Venece. By the way, and from France?

Now, that move was a flagrant violation of all the international conventions between historians about writing names and so on, and so, it can not be permited. The administrator can be good on WP rules, but he do not know nothing about historiographic rules. Please, propose immediately the votation RfC, but with sock-puppets verificability (if the verificability isn't already a pre-condition of the votations). Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: your name wasn't very strange to me, and now I know why. Maybe who wrote «Ça(e)rralbo» wasn't properly Fernão Lopes, but a copist. But I think, yes, that was Lopes. Jorge alo (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The double-linking you recently attributed to me was in fact not mine. Greetings! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Walrasiad

Since I don't care to have my posts called "chimp shit" or "bat guano" by user:Alarbus, I will post some numbers here.
I logged in and searched for books from Jan 1950-Dec 2012:
"John VI of Portugal", 744[9]
"Joao VI of Portugal", 342[10].
I added the year definition, since I usually do this when I search for references. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Do you mind if I post them in that section? (I don't have to credit you, if you'd rather me not?) Walrasiad (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a all. You don't have to mention me. If you add University for the publisher:

John VI of Portugal, 52.[11]

Joao VI of Portugal, 47.[12] --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Walrasiad. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi. When you recently edited Guilds of Florence, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tanner, Harness and Saddler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reported you to the Administrators' noticeboard for edit warring. This is the link for the thread I opened. --Lecen (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you gonna like this, and I also think the problem will be over.The trouble is that these guys came, I think, more or less all from vulgar genealogy sites, and they have all the respectiv defects.

Abraço, Saint George, also known by Jorge alo (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The behaviour you describe on my talk page (whether in this case it is true or imagined) is really very common on Wikiepdia. The longer you are here the more likely you are to experience it. See for example my comment here

I suggest that you look through what I have written (particularly the paragraph from the use English naming convention), because when you write something in an RM or and AfD that you are most unlikely to convince someone who holds an different opinion from you to change their mind (it happens but not to often). So instead aim what you write to persuade neutral people new to the debate, and to the person who is going to close the debate to see it from your point of view. In a case like this if you had presented the information suggested for investigation in the use English naming convention, you would be more likely to convince people (and if you find to your surprise that the evidence does not support you POV you can alter you POV before nailing you colours to the mast. In the words of John Maynard Keynes "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"). If on the other hand the evidence presented to the questions supports your preconceived POV then presenting them precisely and clearly is more likely to persuade others.

In this case at the ANI you have made your points about what you perceive to be irregular behaviour. I suggest that you now leave the ANI to run its course, as putting on more pressure will not further your case, and is likely to muddy the water. Indeed the response by User:The ed17 is likely to satisfy most people who assume good faith. It it does not then let others speak for you.

If the RM is not reopened then I suggest you drop it and wait six months. Then if you think the evidence supports your position open a new RM with new evidence laid out clearly based on this paragraph:

In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title.

— Use English naming convention

--PBS (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Walrasiad,

After time of thinking, I would like to say I am sorry we have been at odds. I do not like to be at odds with people, and sometimes I can get a bit to nationalistic, but you can also come off as rude sometimes. I would like to put our disagreements behind us, as I do not want to have an inimigos here on wikipedia. I hope you feel the same and that we can put this whole fiasco behind us.

Thank you,
Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano, thank you. I responded on your page, before I saw this shenanigan below. But I still hold by the sincerity of what I wrote there. I haven't changed my mind about that.Walrasiad (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recent move request on João V won't pass. You won't get a consensus anymore. No administrator will revert the ed 17's decision to close the move request, since he is a widely respected editor. Thus, I want to propose a settlement: Cristiano Tomás will not rename the other remaining Portuguese Kings called João (I, II, III and IV). Since it seems you enjoy writing about the 14th-17th centuries period, you'll still be able to call your kings by their Anglicized names. We'll keep João V and João VI. You'll get 60% and we 40%. The other option is to try to see how far this will go. --Lecen (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will not, lets just do this magnificent proposal. Do you not agree walrasiad? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, are you proposing that I sell out the integrity of Wikipedia, or else you'll give me a headache? Take possession of articles? Or else? In case you haven't noticed Lecen, I don't much appreciate your gangland tactics. So you now realize your bullying methods - manipulation, personal attacks, baseless accusations, attempted blocks, etc. - do not intimidate me. So now you want to detach the point of strongest resistance, bribe me off with a side-deal, so you can focus your fire on harassing and bullying the other editors? Just what kind of person do you take me for? To my shame, I have allowed my honor to be tattered in this affair, but I still have some left. Take your disgraceful, dirty deal and get out of my sight. Walrasiad (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cristiano Tomas: Never let other people speak in your name. Especially not manipulative thugs. You are young, your honor is still untainted. Guard it well, for life will be throwing lots of dirt at it and you'll miss it when it is gone. Walrasiad (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that we have agreed for a new slate, if I may be at all a help to any articles you write about Portugal (My particular "expertice" is in architecture and nobil/royalty) let me know. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Architecture? Cool. Do you perchance know much about Manueline architecture? Because I might have a question or two to ask about that. Walrasiad (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When studying on architecture, I absolutely dedicate my self to Manuelino style, I adore it. If I may be of help, just ask :) Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely will. It always comes up in my area, and I don't know much about it. Good to know you're around.  :) Walrasiad (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I made a great confusion, in the particular, I'm going to correct it: Is in Vila Pouca de Aguiar, Vila Real, Alto Trás-os-Montes correction: Vila Nova de Foz Coa , [13]. The order Vinhais, Bragança, Cedavi, Outeiro de Miranda isn't the order of Henry's II march, is a order North-South and, maybe, also South-North, and was this that confunded a little, for example, Armando Alberto Martins (Guerras Fernandinas 1369-1382, Academia Portuguesa de História,ISBN:978-989-628-026-0), p. 45: «Face ao impasse em que as operações se encontravam, no Outono de 1369 os castelhanos, num périplo de regresso, por Trás-os-Montes, limitaram-se a arrasar as localidades por onde se retiraram, Vinhais, Cedovim (observando o mapa é difícil perceber a razão deste estranho desvio tanto para sul na rota seguida), Bragança e Outeiro de Miranda,antes de regressar a Toro, onde os precedera o seu rei.»

Almost sure, there wasn't only the host of Henry II actuating from the castilian side. Read, particularly, the end of Fernão Lopes chapter XXXV and the final note (this is a yet umpublished version, but will be printed and is already on Internet). And, if king Henry «went on Cedavi», he must have done that on his way to Bragança. End of chapter XXXV:

«Partiu elrei dom Fernando de Coimbra com todas as suas gentes, e dizem que chegou até ao Porto e elrei dom Henrique houve novas disto – e ainda afirmam alguns que elrei dom Fernando lhe escreveu suas cartas para que o atendesse – e, vendo como não podia tomar Guimarães, partiu-se logo do cerco e foi-se para a comarca de Trás-os-Montes onde tomou Vinhais, Bragança, Cedavi e o Outeiro de Miranda em mui poucos dias, que uns foram tomados por arte, outros por não se poderem defender. Assim como foi tomada Miranda, que, antes que elrei dom Henrique chegasse a ela, mudaram-se alguns dos seus e fingiram que eram recoveiros (almocreves) portugueses e que haviam mister de viandas da vila por seus dinheiros. Os do lugar, não se catando de tal arte, deram-lhes ocasião a que entrassem lá dentro, e eles, entrando, tiveram logo a porta, e nisto chegaram à pressa os que iam cerca para lhes acorrer, e desta guisa houveram a vila. Outrossim, os homens de Cedavi defendiam mui bem o lugar, indo elrei dom Henrique sobre ele, mas houveram alguns do arraial fala com VasqueEsteves e com alguns outros para que lhes dessem entrada na vila, que não receberiam nojo e lhes faria elrei muitas mercês, e eles, outorgando isto, tomaram as chaves e abriram as portas, e entraram os inimigos e foi tomado o lugar. E os moradores de dentro que disto parte não sabiam, andando depois fugido este VasqueEsteves, lançaram então inculca (perseguição) sobre ele e tomaram-no e foi enforcado numa ameia do muro. E todos os montes daquela comarca foram então cheios de homens, mulheres, moços e gados, e viveram na Abadia velha e em Ventoselo e em todas as aldeias dos montes altos, e os monges e abades dos mosteiros daquela comarca todos fugiram, e foi isto do mês de Agosto até Santa Maria de Setembro (n). E deixou elrei dom Henrique depois recado na vila de Bragança e foi-se para Castela, e dizem que o azo da sua partida tão cedo e de não atender elrei dom Fernando, para com ele pelejar, foram as novas que lhe chegaram, estando sobre Guimarães, em como à cidade dAljazira, por não ser posta em boa segurança, a cobraram os mouros e destruíram de todo, tendo elrei de Granada vindo aí por seu corpo (em pessoa), e que pelo grande pesar que elrei disto houve se partiu assim e se foi para a vila de Toro e dali repartiu suas gentes, umas à frontaria de Granada, outras à Galiza e outras ainda contra Zamora e os outros lugares que não tinham a sua voz e estavam por Portugal.

Nota: Sabemos que Henrique II esteve em Braga durante a segunda quinzena de Agosto, no cerco de Guimarães até 21 de Setembro e que só depois entrou em Trás-os-Montes. A fuga para os pontos altos das populações do nordeste transmontano, logo entre Agosto e 8 de Setembro, só pode explicar-se pelo ataque de outras forças castelhanas. Veja-se, sobre isto, na edição das Crónicas de Ayala de 1780, t. II, pág. 596, a parte final da mencionada carta de 18 de Agosto de Henrique II.»

Abraço, and when the RfC on names of portuguese kings will be ready, please warn me. Jorge alo (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I think you might be right. I took a more careful look at Ayala, and I found an illuminating phrase:(Lopo de Ayala, Cap. XIV, p.9)

E el Rey Don Enrique estovo sobre la villa de Guimaranes algunos dias, e vio que non la podia tomar; e partio dende, e estovo algunos dias en la comarca de entre Duero e Mino faciendo dano en toda la tierra. E queriendose partir dende para se venir a Castilla, ovo nuevos e cartas del Rey Don Ferrando de Portugal que la quieria dar batalla, si le atendiese. E entonce el Rey Don Enrique acordo de le esperar en su tierra cerca de un comarca que dicen Tras los Montes: e cerco una villa de Portogal que llaman Breganza, e alli accordo de recoger su gentes de Castilla; pero el Rey de Portogal non quiso pelear. E el Rey Don Enrique tomo la villa e castillo de Breganza que tenia cercada, e dexo en ella recabdo, e tornose para Casilla.

I didn't notice that interlude before. This suggests it wasn't a straight march from Guimaraes to Braganza, but there is a little period in between when Henry ran around doing damage in the area, before moving into Tras os Montes. So would have likely been when Cedavi was taken - not "en route" to Castile, but before that decision was made (as the letter's timing suggests). As for the timing, I don't think it had to be necessarily a different force. He could have still be technically besieging Guimaraes during this time, with a holding force, while going out galavanting in the area with the rest of his host. Walrasiad (talk)

Yes, could had been when he was in Guimarães: a raid. He used to do that, for example, during the siege of Toledo on 1369. But, as Fernão Lopes say that «Henry went there», I think is also possible that the attack was during the march from Guimarães to Bragança. The mistery is why Fernão Lopes indicated a order North-South and, may be, also South-North, and not the actual order of march of Henry. I think that he had done that because the first populations to run were from the North of Trás-os-Montes, and I think that guys that were coming to join Henry in Braga and, after, in Guimarães, were the responsables. You read what he wrote in the end of the letter to his wife, Queen Juana? Jorge alo (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either case is certainly possible. But I think you're right on the whole: it is Cedovim and Cedovim came first, before Vinhais, Braganza, etc. I should really finish the Fernandinas page and post it - given that you are on alert and can obviously really help improve it. Alas, right now, I'm trying to rush a revamp of the woeful Amerigo Vespucci page before February (the 500th anniversary of his death), and that's taking most of my time now. :( Walrasiad (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is something I haven't told you, but first a correction: the siege of Toledo was on 1368/1369, and not only on 1369, and I think Henry's raids were, at least the most part, in 1368. But you will surely confirm it in the futur, when you will write the article. This guy was a kind of "blitzkriger" of that time, and a very god one. I said the order was North-South, but also can be, for a second move, South-North, in reality, I think it can be an double order on the time, «he took in few days...», says Lopes...(first) Vinhais, (then) Çadavi (Cedavi), Bragança, Cedavi and Outeiro of Miranda (Miranda it´s a reference to the same place: Outeiro of Miranda, and not to Miranda do Douro, as some by error thought). In that case, Vinhais must have been taken by others that not Henry II's host. Maybe some guys that were coming to join him from, for example, Zamora's province. Some of the guys indicated on the letter to Queen Juana were precisely at North of Vinhais, at Puebla de Sanabria. But, in any case, all this matter is a lot of «if»s. And things can be eaven more complicated, because Outeiro de Miranda could have been taken also with a raid from west, without Henry II's intervention. Lopes says: «before he arrived there». But, for the order on time, for me is sure this: first Vinhais falled (guys that came from Puebla de Sanabria), and maybe also Bragança, then Cedovim (on the hands of men of Henry II's host), and then Bragança (conquered by Henry). About Outeiro de Miranda isn't sure the temporal order, because, in the end of an episode, many times, Lopes go out of the temporal order, refering something less important or that, before, he had forgoten it could have beeen taken also by Henry's host. On his letter to Queen Juana, he spoke about an Garci Alvarez, and gave orders to him and others to attack from Puebla de Sanabria. On chapter LIX, Kings Ferdinand Chronicle, Fernão Lopes wrote that Bragança, in 1372, was on the hands of Garçia Alvares dOsorio (surely the same guy). I think this guy attacked from North, and maybe was him that tooked Vinhais and, perhaps, also Bragança. Henry was since August on Minho, and all the land was sacked. I think he made a movement to South, whem he left Guimarães, to sack others regions, and then he ascended (Cedovim-Outeiro de Miranda). So, it could had been two movements, one North-South, of the guys of Garcia Alvarez, and a movement South-North, from the host of Henry. I think it's the most probable.

There's more, at least, another academic source (and Armando Alberto Martins is already a very good source) speaking of Çadavi-Cedavi-Cedovim, as a possibility: [14]. I think the most sure, in Wikipedia, it's to refer Cedovim, and the order gaved by Fernão Lopes, Vinhais-Cedovim-Bragança-Cedovim-Outeiro, maybe without any commentaries. Jorge alo (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected on this date, Jorge alo (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re [15], please don't. This is why I will be monitoring the RfC for overpersonalized comments. Running to ANI is going to inflame the situation and not solve a thing; as I explained, given the current arbitration case, civility blocks currently require a full-blown obvious attack to even have a chance. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are jumping the gun. I have not submitted an ANI. I have no interest in submitting an ANI or persecuting anyone. But I am intent on ensuring an open and non-hostile environment for other wiki editors to participate. To avoid any confusion, I drew up a list of exact points, which are perfectly in conformity with common rules of civility and open discourse (I don't know why your archived it away; I think it is a very useful set of guidelines). With all due respect, I am not confident of the judgment of any single admin will be able to enforce that, as in the interests of over-judiciousness or to appear even-handed, they might allow things to slide or take very liberal interpretations on hostility on bullying, and this thing will quickly get out of hand as before. I don't want to see a rinse and repeat. I intend to stand up firmly to bullying tactics, I am adamant about ensuring open and full participation by all Wiki editors. And if it takes a warning and the prospect of an ANI to ensure everyone remains on their best behavior, then I don't see anything wrong with that. It is much more effective and fair to make expectations clear ahead of time, than retrospectively. I have not done anything as yet, and I hope I shall not have to, but I reserve the right to submit an ANI, and I don't think you should be trying to forestall it before we even get to that stage. Walrasiad (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Energy and time permitting, I would like to support any of your fine efforts in these crucially important matters, important to all of us. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

It seems to be the city of Taza (the Ribat of Taza). I'm not 100% sure but I see no other fortified city with a significant importance, and the city seems to be not far from its right location. :)

Omar-Toons (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Abdallah al-Adil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Caceres

Ferdinand III of Castile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Niebla

John III of Portugal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Manuel of Portugal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Yahya ibn Umar al-Lamtuni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walrasiad,

Do not worry senhor Walrasiad, I did not take offense from your commenting on the Iberica Peninsula template, I am happy that I was told how templates should be and what they should be for. I would be absolutely pleased to make a collapsable for the Avis and Avis-Beja houses. I too have thought that they are quite to large for their articles. May I ask what you would think would be best, side-bar collapsable or the end of the page collapsable?

Thank you and good editings,

Cristiano Tomás (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Walrasiad,

thank you for your contribution to the discussion about a requested move of Freedom and Justice Party/Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt). I have replied to you arguments and concerns. If you want, you can check again if I could convince you and dispel your concerns. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Walrasian

thanks for writing! I answered in the Talk:Italy page. Ciao, Alex2006 (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1.I would like to note the TITLE of the chapter:"Of RESTRAINTS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES of such Goods as can be Produced at Home "

2.Correct quotation:"But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of DOMESTIC INDUSTRY, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. BY PREFERRING THE SUPPORT OF DOMESTIC TO THAT OF FOREIGN INDUSTRY, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, LED BY AN INVISIBLE HAND to promote an end which was NO PART OF HIS INTENTION. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among MERCHANTS, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it. "

3.How that could be distorted in"He described the MARKET MECHANISM as an "invisible hand" that leads ALL INDIVIDUALS, in pursuit of their own self-interests, to produce the GREATEST benefit for society as a whole" is something that is deeply disturbing to me.

I dont think you need a PhD in Economics to see how fallacious this kind of quotation is.I seriously think that at least Wikipedia should give a good example by quoting things from the right sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs) 13:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fight is here, in the last iten and with my bad spanish (Denuncia...etc). In the end I will have already prepared more or less a half of my futur monography to kill dragons out of Wikipédia. There will be a lot of sources and commentaries I think can be interesting to you, but I'm going to write only 10 to 20 lines by day, so, please don't bother with reading it so soon. My best cumpliments, dear old sire, Jorge alo (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Diogo, Constable of Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Columbus Letter on the First Voyage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Spanish, Lyons, Classical, Guadalupe and Marien

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You recently commented on the layout of this template, there has been a recent edit war and I hope you have a moment to provide some input. Thanks Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I read through your objections to the Portugal category's renaming, and saw that though you made your points quite well, no one else supported those objections. So I renamed it to match all the other categories in that parent category. Feel free to remove anything you think doesn't belong in the new category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an Requests for comment (RFC) discussion on the procedure for handling objections to the speedy renaming of categories. This arises out of issues which I identified in your recent disagreement with an admin about how one such objection was handled, so I have notified both you and the admin concerned, Mike Selinker (talk · contribs).

Please note that the RFC is not a review of the conduct of either you or Mike. It is policy-related discussion, which seeks a consensus on the procedure for to handling such matters in future.

The RFC is at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#RFC_on_contested_speedy_renamings_of_categories, where your contribution will be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Juan Bautista Muñoz, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enlightenment and Charles III (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I inform you that two cases of Bokpasa-like PoV-pushings are ongoing in two different articles :

• Kingdom of the Algarve [16], by a new user that I suspect to be a sockpuppet of Bokpasa [17] ;
• Averroes [18], by a user who doesn't seem to be a sock but acts the same way than Bokpasa (I opened a discussion thread about this subject with him, if you want to give your opinion [19]).

Thanks in advance ;)

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is to notify you that I have raised some issues regarding some of your edits in the Niominka people's history. [20]. Tamsier (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your major expansion of this article, which I just noticed when a change appeared on my watchlist. (It's a lot better now than when I last added a couple of references a while ago). The stuff about discovery of manuscripts in the 19th century is very interesting. EdJohnston (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Walrasiad. Saint George won some holidays on Wikipedia en castellano, granted with a 30 days block. Then he enjoyed more 30 days of his one. Now, great and gentle sire, without any more jokes, I ask, please, your intervention here. I only ask you to read the discussion and, if you will be so kind, to consider the hypothesis of making a brief commentary. With my best cumpliments, Jorge alo (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your expansion of the Siege of Orleans. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You're welcome. Glad you liked it. Although I still need to add more references and should probably throw in a better map. Walrasiad (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We were having a good discussion and making progress on the lead sentence, but you haven't responded to my last post. Are you finished or too busy. I want to know so that the lead can be adjusted. Thanks.14:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Sigiheri (talk)

Hi. You have asked me about my opinion on this edit of yours. I wish you would not replace current scholarship with sources which are more than a century old (from 1895)!

As for calling the History of the University in Europe "a more limited qualifer". This is only true for the latter two volumes (1800-) when the university was globally adopted. But we are not talking about this period, so this is irrelevant. History of the University in Europe is of no more limited scope than a History of the Madrasa in the Islamic World would be. It refers to the institution where it existed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Rashdall: *shrug* It's the same source that Verger used. Unfortunately, for all its age, it remains the standard in the field. And conveniently linkable.

As for the qualifier: you're welcome to speculate. Just a gentle reminder that you're taking this peculiar absolutist perspective of yours to extremes others don't. Walrasiad (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If "absolutist" perspectives are your concern, one wonders why you still don't tackle the issue here, namely the most grandiose and pompous claim that Al-Karaoine was the first university in the world... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because that absolutist claim relates to an absurd list, that frankly I don't care about. I understand this quarrel emerged from the "List of oldest universities in continuous operation" which is, frankly, a rather silly list to begin with, of no usefulness or value. It is merely a "fun" thing, comparable to a chart of national penis sizes. There is simply no documentary basis for any claims before the 13th C., and as a chart of university evolution useless as it omits those that were important before but are no longer in existence. By contrast, the List of medieval universities is more serious, and that list I'd like indeed to keep distinctively in Latin Europe, as an aid to researchers on the topic, with is why I took the effort to lay out the explanation for inclusion/exclusion clearly and in scholarly fashion, with attendant caution. But for the silly "oldest universities" list, I see no reason why everyone can't get in on the fun. Your efforts to derail and misrepresent research on the history of higher learning, steamrolling all subtlety, caution or care, for the sake of a meaningless Super Mario vs. Godzilla contest is, frankly, a big waste of time and effort. So al-Qaraouine is probably the oldest thing that can be called a university in continuous existence. What does it matter? Walrasiad (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#List of oldest universities regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Thank you.

--Omar-toons (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just letting you know that your DYK nomination has been moved, because only template transclusions (not the text of nominations) should be placed directly on Template talk:Did you know. Your nomination is now at Template:Did you know nominations/Ibrahim II of Ifriqiya. You may watch that page for any questions or comments that anybody may have about your nomination. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Fourth Fitna's DYK nomination. If you have time, perhaps you'd like to undertake its GA review as well. It would certainly be better to have it reviewed by someone who knows about the period and can offer in-depth constructive criticism. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. While I'd be glad to help however I can, I confess I know nothing about "GA" articles or their review process. I've never participated in anything other than DYK occasionally, and I'm not sure I have much time to go into more depth than that. But I'll pop in if I can. Walrasiad (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy enough, a fellow user has already begun it: Talk:Fourth Fitna/GA1. The main task would be to check the article for completeness, referencing and ease of understanding by the non-expert. Alternatively, feel free to make any suggestions you'd link at the article's talk page. And BTW, I am currently working on making a full article out of the Muslim conquest of Sicily. I've got some very good sources, but I would very much like to have Talbi's L’émirat aghlabide as well. I saw that you used it at Ibrahim II of Ifriqiya, does this mean that you have access to the book? If so, I'd be very grateful if you could add whatever stuff you can from it. Constantine ✍ 16:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll take a look. On Sicily: Looks very nice! Alas, I don't have Talbi anymore (just notes on it - but I can get it again soon). I do have immediate access to some other sources, e.g. Julien and several Italian sources, incl. translations of the chronicles. I can certainly back up plenty of what you wrote with Amari, the doyen of them all (if only to ease up dependence on Vasiliev; but Amari also has many details on inner-Arab issues which can fill in here and there.) Walrasiad (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I was going to use Amari as well, but my Italian is probably not up to it. Go ahead then, I look forward to your additions! Constantine ✍ 06:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Santa Catarina do Monte Sinai, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Faro and John Burrough (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ibrahim II of Ifriqiya, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Aghlabid emir Ibrahim II of Ifriqiya reportedly ordered the execution of 300 palace servants after finding a napkin mislaid at dinner? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ibrahim II of Ifriqiya. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Masuna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you know you've hit 3RR? The article is on my watchlist so I can check any more edits from this editor. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did? I thought the last revert was a week ago or so. At any rate, thanks for letting me know. I reached out repeatedly to the editor on his talk page to discuss this, but he didn't deign to reply, so I'm not sure how to pursue this. I've set out the case again, with more details, in the article talk page there. Maybe he'll reply there. Walrasiad (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem. -- PBS (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful with the accusations you make. Do not make another false one like this one. I haver never talked with FactStraight, Necrothesp, P.T. Aufrette, nor with SmokeyJoe. Cristiano Tomás is a well known contributor of articles related to Portugal's history. Br'er Rabbit (who is American) and Paulista01 are two editors who have contributed on several different moments to articles related to Portugal and Brazil. Chiwara (wh ois also American) and Érico Wouters are members of the Empire of Brazil task force. I don't need their votes to support my request. Two more votes wouldn't have changed a single thing on that move request. Unlike last time, during John VI's discussions where you had a lot of fun, I will not tolerate any false accusations or attempts to ruin my credibility in here. This is a fair warning. If you got the point you'll be very careful with what you say from now on. --Lecen (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need my help with that. Please keep your indimidation attempts off my talk page. But since I got your attention, let me also urge now that you try to maintain civil on the RM talk page and focused firmly on topic. Twice already you have endeavored to make personal attacks on me there unrelated to this discussion, which I have elected to overlook. Please don't try to derail again. Walrasiad (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walrasiad,

I am immensely sorry. I did what I said I wouldn't and I forgot to continue. Though after your argument on my page you have sufficiently convinced me. I appreciate your pacience. I'm very happy you are knowledgable to have provided a good argument. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Everyone gets distracted and busy. Glad to hear it. I will roll back the A-A identifications. As I said, the alternatives aren't much better, but at least not so polemical. Walrasiad (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ferdinand the Saint Prince, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noronha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:The High Fructose Adventures of Annoying Orange.png	The Wikipedians' Tireless Annoyer Award, 1st degree
	Much deserving of this for your valuable contributions to DYK and Marrakech and your annoyingly good contributions to Ferdinand the Saint Prince. You literally seem to know it all!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walrasiad,
I'd like to thank you with being patient with me in all this naming issue. I guess it is my want for that anglo-spanish etc. tradition that set me to add it, and I'm sorry. May I ask, could we include a bit about "New Portugal"? It's just that I have found books that use the term and that map I found online. Perhaps we could include it and tell that it was an erroneous term but nonetheless used. What do you think? If you think it is not sufficient, I will lay my claims down. I appreciate your pacience and edits, Cumrpimentos Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You were discussing capitalism with me, then just stopped. What's up with that? I'm still awaiting your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ferdinand the Holy Prince, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Prince Henry the Navigator handed over his brother Ferdinand the Holy Prince (pictured) as a hostage, and preferred to let him die in captivity rather than fulfill the treaty he had signed? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your whopping history expansion of Marrakech!! Amazing!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll complete my inputs in a day or two to it but I think it might be needed to create a History of Marrakech and condense, the landmarks also needs a considerable condensing. But making it pretty comprehensive and widely researched first port of call. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Oh, there's more coming. ;) Let me finish pasting it in before decision is made. Walrasiad (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we'll definitely have to move it to History of Marrakech and then begin a condensing of it for the main article. The article would now be uncomfortably long for many people I think. Me I love long comprehensive articles though. I am very glad you've written it this fully though, means it will be more comprehensive eventually and the way it should be done. Have you finished yet? 18th centur could use more and of course post 1955 but likely you are still writing it? Keep it up, at this rate we have a possible GA article in the History of Marrekech too.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but don't remove anything from the main article yet. I'm still writing the modern history. I will condense once I've finished, leave that one to me. Bibliography needed in the new history article, credits in edit summary..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you, but if you're sticking with Marrakesh I want you change every wording of it to Marrakesh in the text (not the sources though they should remain). I want to see you move every page we currently have to the esh spelling, and fix all the links on wikipedia to Marrakesh. That's quite a task, but as you insist on this I'm trusting you to sort it out.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most Moroccan history-related articles already use "Marrakesh" (I should know - I wrote a good chunk of them ;) ). But, as already noted, Marrakech/Marrakesh isn't the biggest confusion in the world. If you have reservations, like I said, we can submit this to RM (along with Fez) for a permanent resolution. But just for now, I'd like to move just the "History of Marrakesh" page, and we can resolve the long-term resolution later. Walrasiad (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you start using sfn notes? Its veyr easy and when you click the source then it'll lead you to the book in the bibliography. All it is:{{sfn|surname|year|p=}} Just like you've been doing just encased like this. Also then you just add ref=harv in the add of the bibliography templates. Paste in google book urls into http://reftag.appspot.com/ I've restored the history in the main to the original, article was taking too long to save even on my high powered Acer! I'll gradually rebuild it and make it more comprehensive from your article, unless you could write an adequate condensed version of course. I did begin try to condense it but so much good info I declined to remove enough. You need to work on the History article French period to present I think, especially French period.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, planning a complete rewrite of Tangier. Let me know if you are interested. Still a fair bit of work to do on Marrakesh though, a few articles on landmarks I want to create too.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find something on Abd el-Mumen, Ba Ahmed and Moulay Abd al-Hafid? Starting the red link removal.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two already have pages. Abd el-Mumen = Abd al-Mu'min and Moulay Abd al-Hafid = Abdelhafid of Morocco. I can get some stuff on Ba Ahmed = Ahmed ibn Musa Should ALA-LC these names. Walrasiad (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marrakech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Walrasiad. Agree. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding but I think with a bit of work History of Marrakesh could become a featured article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it's always that last extra bit of work that takes up a disproportionately large chunk of time. Which is why I don't bother with GAs or FAs. Rather set about making new content. And I'm supposed to be semi-retired... Walrasiad (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ben Youssef Mosque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ablution

History of Marrakesh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Protectorate of Morocco

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the whole explanation. I do hope you'll read, and with an open mind, willing to perhaps change your altogether alternate view of history.

"No more and no greater interruption than the Latin Empire of 1204. Weaker even, for we actually have documents where the Ostrogoths are recognized as legitimate holders of Roman agency."

• Perhaps. And some historians who like to argue semantics do assert that 1204 is the real year the Byzantine Empire fell. But this is a red herring. We were talking about the fall of Rome, the city.

"(2) Roman empire most definitely had a de jure capital - it is all over their juridical instruments. Rome was not the "regional capital" in Italy ever. It was always Milan or Ravenna. The Tetrarchy agreement of 293, which placed the empire under four emperors, was clear about Rome being the one, united, joint capital of the entire Roman empire, the seat of SPQR, the source for the authority of all emperors. The so-called regional or imperial capitals - Trier, Milan, Sirmium and Nicomedia - were nothing more than military HQ for an individual regional emperor. The common capital, Rome, was jointly owned by all, which no emperor could claim as his own. That never changed."

• There were no such things as legally-defined "capital cities" in the ancient world. The capital is where the government is, and the government is with the Emperor at all times. Of course, Rome was always "held in honor", but ceased functioning as the capital as early as the reign of Septimius Severus (quoting prof. Madden's lecture here), and certainly during and after the Crisis of the 3rd Century. These are facts, not really up for discussion.

"(3) the SPQR is the "legal gibberish" that defines Rome, it's what makes Rome Rome, it is what makes Roman citizens, etc. The partition between "Roman Republic" and "Roman Empire" is an invention of modern historians to conviently partition two political phases of a single continuous state."

• The phrase SPQR (and the initialism thereof) were in use as the name of the Roman state up until around the reign of Diocletian and Constantine. By Constantine's reign they disappear from coins.
• But more importantly, that is merely the name of the state. Its not what the state is. Its just a traditional phrase. Words. Words not much used cca. after the Crisis of the 3rd Century. People in Rome are known to have used the initialism until about the year 400, later the popes used it again. That is all of no consequence for our considerations: as the phrase ceased to be used for the Roman state (they disappear from coins etc.).

"Down to the end, Roman emperors were legally nothing more than first citizens of the Roman Republic."

• Absolutely not. Legally (de iure), they were the "first citizens" ("principes") until Diocletian. Afterwards they were the domini, the "lords". De facto, they were absolute military dictators since Caesar and Augustus, and could basically do whatever they liked (e.g. Caligula). Diocletian's reforms dropped the pretense, and the emperor was an open despot and autocrat. People had to prostrate themselves in his presence, just for example.

"If you sever the connection with SPQR, you sever the connection with ancient Rome. In short, you cease being part of the Roman empire."

• No, not really. That's merely your conclusion, its just plain wrong.

"So if you're suggesting SPQR didn't matter in Byzantine empire, then that only reinforces that the Byzantine empire is not the Roman empire, but merely a seceded state under new rulers, a state without "citizens" of a Roman Republic, but only with "subjects" of the King of Byzantium."

• Again: no. Simply, no. If a state changes its name, it does not become another state. Period.

"(4) 'Basileus' is Greek for king, a tribal leader, the equivalent of the Latin Rex. The Greek translation of Latin Imperator is Autokrator. And Greek-language documents in the Roman Empire era used Autokrator to denote emperor. Heraclius's taking on the Basileus designation, took it and used it in its tribal sense, as a "King of the Romans" (tribal chief of some tribe he called the Romani), and not an imperator of the Roman Republic."

• Heraclius and his whole period have absolutely nothing to do with the Roman Republic. The "Roman Republic" (like "Roman Empire") are a historiographical terms, not actual names of any historical state. Historians decide when the Roman Republic is gone, and by the most general consensus the Roman Republic ENDS at around the year 27 BC. The legal trappings of the Republic, which were maintained in the Principate period (of the Roman Empire!) are GONE by the end of the Crisis of the 3rd Century and the reforms of Emperor Diocletian. Gone. There is no "Roman Republic" to speak of in the 7th Century. Its absolutely absurd to speak of any "Roman Republics" at that time. The title of the Roman emperor after Heraclius was Basileus, because Heraclius took that title from the Sassanid Shah (having defeated him). Previously it had been simply "imperator" or "dominus", NOT "imperator of the Roman Republic" or any such nonsense.

"(5) Roman law, Roman institutions, Roman everything, depends on SPQR. It doesn't depend on the army - indeed, what were the four letters that the Roman army carried? Ah, yes, SPQR. That's the controlling legal authority. Continuity passes through it, and always passed through it, formally and legally. It may not always be particularly effective in contradicting the will of the Emperor - but SQPR appointed him, and invested him, with the lictores of the republic doing the ceremony. The Justinian code itself recognizes the Emperor's edicts have no legal power themselves, save by the power of SQPR which is lent to him by them. Dispense with the "legal gibberish" of SPQR at your own risk - as it only reinforces the fact that you're not the continuity of the Roman polity. That some provincial despot on the Bosphorus decides to parade himself as King of the Romans is no more meaningful than the myriad of other Roman Emperors, proclaimed by their armies, out in Britain, Spain, Sicily, Mauretania and Numidia. SPQR is in Rome, channeled by the Bishop of Rome, and the Holy Roman Emperor a more legitimate Roman Emperor than the King of the Romani or the Emperor of Hispania."

• That's just the traditional phrase used as the name of the state, one that is that gone by the 5th century. That's it. Its not some mystical "spirit". The real authority of the Roman emperor rests entirely on the army. From Augustus down to the Angeloi. Invariably and completely. This is basic, elementary-school Roman history. Every emperor counted his reign from the day he was declare emperor by his troops.

"(6) If you find usurpation of the SPQR authority by the pope, cardinals, senate and people of Rome, de facto rulers of Rome, descended from Senatorial families from before the time of the emperors, is "laughable" by your criteria, then usurpation of the SPQR authority by a myriad of palace eunuchs and Armenian bodyguards in Constantinople must be even more laughable."

• Oh my. The last Roman emperor actually born in Rome was Marcus Aurelius (161-180). The last one born in Italy was his son, Commodus (180-192). From Septimius Severus onward - no Roman emperor was even born in Italy. The Roman state encompassed dozens, if not hundreds of nationalities and tribal identities. All eventually identified as Roman. If you have such definitions of "Romanness", you have a very short Roman state indeed. As shocking as that appears to be to you, a Roman emperor is defined by the fact that he controls the Roman state - nothing else. And he himself is a "Roman", simply by being a citizen of the Empire. Charlemagne was not a citizen of the Empire, he was not Roman. And the fact that popes used "SPQR" or whatever symbol means absolutely nothing. No more than me wearing an "SPQR" t-shirt makes me the ruler of the known world (or allows me to decide whom the ruler of the known world should be).

"(7) Clearly I can't be out of touch with the legal realities of the age, for those were the realities quoted by the Pope and he had a pretty ample stable of legal scholars. :) What I might be out of touch with is modern military fanboism, which thinks of the Roman Empire as nothing more than guys in armor who beat on barbarians, and overlooks pretty much the remainder of Roman institutions."

• I did not say you weren't in touch with the legalities of the age, in fact I said you are basing your whole (strange) alterante history on said legalities and in reality meaningless symbols. What you are out of touch with, is actual Roman history. Talk about "fanboism" - you are absolutely convinced any institution that uses the initialism "SPQR" is somehow the "Roman Republic".

No hard feelings, at all times :). Cheers -- Director (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw shucks. I had already compiled a pile of Greek & Latin documents to reinforce the case.

While I most definitely disagree with your analysis of the topic and certainly agree with Director stating that you shouldn't develop arguments based on your own interpretation of primary sources... [without the academic] ...specialization, I am curious what documents you compiled.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only have time for a brief reply:

(1) Not sure why you're thinking this is my view. Nothing of what I'm saying should be a surprise to anyone familiar with papal or Italian history. It's the pretty much the arguments articulated by popes from the 7th and 8th C., and particularly in the 12th & 13th. I'm merely restating their case.

(2) Rome was so defined - as much as any city could be so defined legally, as the unitary capital of the empire. It is the first city, the "head of the world" ("caput est orbis terrarum"), as Justinian called her, which all other cities must follow ("debere omnes civitates consuetudinem romae sequi"). It is the seat of the Senate of Rome. The Prefect of Rome (Praefectus urbi) had supreme legal jurisdiction second only to the emperor, his range, while initially limited to Rome's environs, expanded and had right of ultimate juridical appeal from throughout the entire Roman empire. And the Prefect remained in Rome with all his powers even when the emperor moved out. Both the Senate and Prefect of Rome continued to exist for centuries after, through Ostrogoth and Lombard times. So the institutions of Rome didn't disappear. They may de facto weak, but they exist.

The capital wasn't "moved" by Constantine. He moved his retinue from his Milan HQ to Nicomedia, the HQ of the eastern prefectures he had just conquered, just like so many other emperors did before him. He didn't like Nicomedia, so he built a new eastern HQ at Byzantium. That's all there is to this story. There was merely a different HQ, another "royal city". Throughout all this and after, Rome and its institutions stayed put, its capital status as "head of the world", was unaffected. There is not a single constitution issued by Constantine or his successors that suggested it wasn't, or that they renounced the once-and-eternal status confirmed by the tetrarchy, or moved any Roman institution to the east. The Constantinople Senate was little more than a municipal council, its Prefect's jurisdiction limited to Constantinople alone. It did not substitute or even replicate the authority of the Roman Senate and Prefect, which remained firmly in Rome.

And just as Constantine didn't reduce Rome, neither did Odoacer nor the Ostrogoths nor the Lombards. The senate continued to meet, prefects to be appointed and hear cases. To suggest that Rome "ceased" in 476 is a simplistic caricature. Which may be convenient to speak of loosely, given its political and military weakness (if that's what you're interested in discussing), but institutionally and legally, it is strictly incorrect.

2) You shouldn't be shifting the goalposts. Your original assertion related the death of the Republic, with the beginning of the Empire, now you want to shift it to the Dominate and ignore the existence of republican institutions for the duration of the principate as "mere words" (despite the fact that they actually had real power, diminshing admittedly, but not wholly toothless). The partition between Princeps and Dominate is a convenient artifice invented by historians. Yes, "Domine" emerged as a flattering courtesy in a period of increasing absolutism, and it might be useful to differentiate two imperial periods. But it didn't stop usage of "Princeps". Justinian is referred to as both "Dominus" as "Princeps"; he uses "Princeps Romanus" alone to refer to himself repeatedly. (e.g.) (And not a steady decline either; Senate found a lot of new claw in the late Roman empire, especially in the wind down to 476).

In terms of coinage, there are admittedly not too many examples of SPQR after Constantine, that's true. They had to make room for the Chi-Rho. But with Julian the Apostate, SPQR replaced it on the labrari. The coinage of Julian, Jovian, Gratian, Valens, Theodosius we see advertised "Gloria Republica", "Spes Republice" (Hope of the Republic), "Securitas Republicae", "Reparatio Republica" ("Republic restored") and "Salus Republica", etc. (e.g. 1, 2