Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi just want to know under what definition is Israel a part of Europe? They are on the asian continent, speak a non-european language (hebrew), are not a member of the EU, and many more reasons. Please detail the reasons you have decided to include them amongst european ethnicities here before you readd Israel to that article, because it is very Point of View orientated, or could be construed as racialist (they are white so they must be European right? Wrong). IF you want u can add it to the asian section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.226.27 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am a user from de.wikipedia and my account has already been renamed on de.wikipedia, en.wikipedia and es.wikipedia. At the moment I am trying to complete this list in order to be able to close the process of renaming my accounts. I have made some contributions to la.wikipedia, which I would like to be attributed to my new account sulutil:Usquam. The confirmation of my account Usquam can be found here: [1]. Thank you very much in advance. Yours sincerely, --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Redirect from Guillaume de Melun to William the Carpenteredit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
The hold on editing has been taken off without explanation, to my knowledge, as of this moment, without justification. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply The one who took this off the edit hold did so without reading the talk page. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I refer to the article for J1c3d Y-DNA haplogroup as is indicated in the very first section of my User talk page.
Please see:
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am leaving you this message because recently i made edits adding people who were born on September 12, April 15, and December 22, and all mt addition were removed. They were notable people who have Wikipages, yet other editors removed them while keaving up far less notable people. What i want to know is who is supose to be listed on those pages, where my addition not notable enough, were they wrongly removed and if so should i put them back up. I don't want to start an edit war over this, if you have any advice on this matter let me know.Vincelord (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Adam, could you kindly rename my account (la:user:Sogeking) to the new name Barbaking on la.wikipedia? It is my username on the italian wikipedia, and I'm renaming it globally. Here is a confirmation link on it.wiki. I wrote you some days ago on your discussion page on la.wiki, but probably you don't check it often :). Thanks in advance, --Barbaking(talk) 15:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hello Adam, you might not remember that we have discussed in the past. I had not looked at your user page for a while, the list of comments you have there is really hillarious. I have something that you will also enjoy, a gift from some real academic scholars here (hoping that they have not changed it yet - I pointed it out to them). --FocalPoint (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Correct, but did you notice how they characterize Planoudes? (in the search page, not in the article)? They apply to him the nationality of ....! --FocalPoint (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Real academic scholars vs. illiterate friends 0:1 (because the characterization of illiterate does not correspond to you, be sure, it applies to us all, wikipedia editors and collectively, literate and illiterate, aspirant and unambitious, stupid and smart) --FocalPoint (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participateedit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings,
My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.
I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?
With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.
I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.
Thank-you,
John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
jmcvea@ualberta.ca
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Just a drive-by wave from a fellow disillusioned old-timer. For some reason I can't help myself from making improvements to articles like Odoacer or Aegidius. (I'd add needed sources to biographical articles about certain famous Vandals, but odd to say it's far easier for me to access primary sources like Procopius than to even find the names of secondary sources in this case. :-) -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't remember what I thought Wikipedia would be like now back when I started either, but I'm sure it was nothing close to what it has become. I did have the hope that Wikipedia would serve as an Internet outlet for intellectual studies, similar to how the literary quarterlies/small press movement has kept literary efforts alive beyond the colleges & intellectual circles. But instead of considering innovative approaches such as teaching potential contributors how to do research & write good articles, the Foundation appears more interested in spending its limited resources on things like image filtering. (If you haven't heard of that effort, you're happier not knowing.) Anyway, if you get any books into print I invite you to send me an email letting me know; I may not buy a copy (my financial situation has been frustratingly unstable recently), but I definitely would like to follow the course of your research. -- llywrch (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Nice to hear from you! This use of theta is not unique to the Gladiator Mosaic. It's used twice on the paired mosaics recovered from the so-called Villa dei Symmachii, somewhere along the Appian Way. The text (including the theta) is given thorough scholarly treatment in James Henry Oliver's Symmachi, Homo Felix (1957) - d'you have access? That aside, I don't think this use of theta particularly widespread or generalised; but that's just me guessing from negative evidence. Tut. Cynwolfe has added some very useful info at my talk-page, on the military use of this sign. It's a fascinating business, and if I can be of further help, please let me know. Haploidavey (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed you still take an interest in the article and you started it, so I wondered what you thought of its current state? I've tried to throw in some background information as it's a high-traffic article. It's one of the most popular Crusades-related articles so I think it's possible some readers may be arriving here without much of background knowledge. I'd be interested if you think the current layout works. Until I started writing about the siege I though having information on the castle's layout after the history would be fine but when talking about the siege I'm worried readers may need a grounding in Krak des Chevaliers' layout. Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can you read the reference that states Saladin was "Arabized"? Studies in Caucasian history, Vladimir Minorsky, Cambridge University Press, p??.[3]
I see that it has no page number, so I was curious if you had access or had more information. A search through the book for the word "Arabized" gives 0 results. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello Adam Bishop/archive11! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi. I think you accidentally erased a reply of mine, which provided a couple of internal links and a few links to Wiktionary entries to the questioner. I restored my comment as it originally was, and placed {{ec}} right before yours. Hope you don't mind. --Theurgist (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
No problem. I usually use the "Show changes" button before saving. That's especially helpful for avoiding the erasure of simultaneous posts on other sections. --Theurgist (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please do not abuse your editor privileges. Your reversion of the changes made on the Godfrey of Bouillon page are unfound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.228.133 (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Regarding this diff, the user in question can comment on his talkpage (since talkpage access has not been revoked) unless there is an overriding block on his IP range. He is a serial sockpuppeteer and should not be unblocked, but advised to use the means of appeal that he has available noted by the block notices. -- DQ (t) (e) 08:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Adam,
in principle I agree with your reversions at Saladin - using 150 year old sources and selectively quoting them out of context and without regard to language changes is inacceptable. But formally you're over WP:3RR. Some Admins do no more then count, so to avoid trouble, it might be a good idea to be more careful in the future. I've semi'd the page, so there should be peace for a few days. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Adam Bishop! First of all thanks for your services to Wikipedia.
However, I don't approve your undo and block to the page "Saladin". I think you should be objective about the historical evidences. I give you evidence which contains the term "Saladin the Turk", and you claim it is out of date, or you delete it for unknown reasons. As an academician, you know that the more a resource is close to the evident, the more it is of actual fact. In old texts of British historians, you can see the expression of "Saladin the Turk", and I ask you to add this fact to the article if you are really objective authors of the Wikipedia. Please read the page 357, section XI in the following ebook of archive.org:
http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofchrist00reev#page/356/mode/2up
There are other resources as well, which uses the name "Saladin the Turk". We cannot ignore these facts. If you request, I can add here other historical resources of 16th century which uses the name "Saladin the Turk" for him. 78.167.13.185 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hello, my only advice is to bring this up on the Saladin discussion page (where, as you will probably see, it has already been discussed dozens of times over the years). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it has been already discussed by people many times. However, it is a fact that you ignore the discussions and never edit the article according to the discussions and resources provided. Even and even, you block people to edit it. I think you don't like Turks? :) Anyway, that's all what I'd say. Saladin the Turk is a fact, but you don't want it to be a reality, and you succeed in this job. You are free to edit it as the great and known authors of Wikipedia, but we are just readers of your minds. That was my last post. Good job! Thanks and bye...78.167.13.185 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm the one that wrote the reference for them being "Turkic". That is not the issue here. I have searched Volume 1 of the sources Carinae986 provided and Zengid/Zangid, Turkish and/or Persian do not appear on page 152. Here you can try.[4] Enjoy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I am losing my cool with this guy. He obviously doesn't know anything about this topic, all he's doing is sitting on the sidelines complaining, he's unwiling to put even the slightest effort into this, and he constantly reverts edits because he has loony tunes ideas about how the citation process works. Nobody should have to cite items that are common knowledge among people with the relavant background. Notwithstanding, I did cite, twice, and that's still not good enough for this guy. Now he's complaining that he doesn't have instant access to my source online, and saying I have to type it out for his personal benefit, just to save him the tiny bit of added effort it would take to educate himself. You're a PhD and an Admin - am I wrong here? Can you help resolve this? If I have to go to the local university library and produce 20+ citations to the effect that Arabs spoke Arabic and Turks spoke Turkic, I'll do it just to prove a point with this guy. But it really shouldn't be necessary. It's like having to cite that the sky is blue or the grass is green. Anyway I'm hoping you can help here, because it's perfectly clear to me that I don't have any ability to persuade him on my own. Carinae986 (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Bishop, You shouldn't unblock the page as if it was your own belonging! Being an Administrator doesn't mean that you'll do whatever you want. Note that Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes. I perceive it's a sort of administrational vandalism of you. Unfortunately you ignore the references that are added by me, and you undo it. You don't provide any logical reason for blocking a page. Also you ignore others' concerns about the article on the discussion page. In the meantime, you should remove the first reference in Ayyubid Dynasty (R. S. Humphreys, "Ayyubids" in Encyclopedia Iranica the link is broken: http://www.iranica.com/articles/ayyubids ) or do whatever it requires for that article. It's now your duty as you prevent people from editing it. Richard Turcoman (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Saint Ladislaus as original leader of the 1st crusadeedit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Why did you deleted Saint Ladislaus in the First Crusade article? There were serious citations there. You can see many (uncountable) hits in google-books which can prove that.
Don't forget: For the deletion, you must search an academic antithesis which can deny that fact. Until that, you must tolerate that information in the article.--Bornder (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Again: You can't proove your statements. Please show me an academic work which can deny that fact. I'm still waitnig for it! Until that, your oppinion remain only just a private opinion.--Bornder (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It is unfounded accusations & slanders! Adam Bishop lost some dicussions, and he try to monopolise some wiki articles. Instead of civilised reasoning and logical argumentation, he tried to solve his problems with administrative ways.--Bornder (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Are you able to search through books on amazon.com? If so, please see here on page 264[5]. Could you find for me exactly where on that page it states, "The success of the first crusade is at least in part attributable to the political confusion which resulted from Malikshah's death." I can not find anything that mentions Malikshah's death, much less any political confusion resulting from his death.
The assumption that the paragraph, in The Venture of Islam Volume 2, is speaking of Malikshah, when it mentions Syria and Aleppo, could easily be referring to Tutush I who died in 1095. p356
"...Tutush, the brother of the Great Sultan Malikshah, had come to be recognized as the Saljuq overlord of Syria...With Malikshah's death and the ensuing factional fights among the Saljuqs, the relative political stability of Syria too was disrupted. Soon after, when Tutush was killed in Persia in 1095, political confusion became openly manifest in Syria and Tutush's kingdom was broken into a number of smaller states. Syria now became the scene of rivalry among different Saljuq princes and "amirs", each one claiming a part of the country, while various minor local dynasties were at the same time attempting to assert their independence." --The Isma'ilis: Their History and Doctrines, p356. By Farhad Daftary.
This is an excellent reason why a source must explicitly mention what it is referencing. We can not assume, guestimate or imply these issues. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Here is the paragraph from The Venture of Islam, Volume 2; "The process of political fragmentation had gone farther in Syria than almost anywhere else: in the last decade of the eleventh century almost every important town had come to have its independent amir, only nominally under the primacy of a Seljukid prince whose effective power was limited to Aleppo. The amirs were jealous of each other but doubly jealous of any outside interference from Iraq or Iran. When there swept in upon them the troops from the Western allies of the Byzantine empire, they could plan almost no united defense; each amir held out in his own town in the hope that sooner or later the storm would blow over and the unexpected show of initiative from the Christian power would burn itself out. One by on some of the most important towns fell.".
As I stated earlier, nothing is said about Malik-shah, nothing about his death or the subsequent chaos following his death. Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Happy Holidays
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 17:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Adam, I was wondering if there's anything else you'd like me to address at the FAC? Or if not, would you be willing to change your "Comment" to "Support"? --Elonka 17:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Adam, could I ask you for help on tracking down a papal bull? I'm trying to find the name of the papal bull that was issued (probably in 1268 by Pope Clement IV) about Isabella of Ibelin, Queen of Cyprus. There's a ref for it in Hill's A History of Cyprus, p. 157, but I'm not sure where to go from there: "Jordan, Reg. de Clem. IV, nos. 865, 866", which I assume means Edouard Jordon, "Registres de Clement IV". Worldcat says there are some copies in France,[6] but I'm wondering if there's something more accessible that I could check. Any suggestions for online databases? --Elonka 05:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Eureka! Found 'em, deep in the stacks at Pius Library. I've transcribed the Latin for Audi filia et at Wikisource, here: wikisource:la:Audi filia et, and created a placeholder page on the English version, here: wikisource:Audi filia et, ready for you to give it a better translation. I'll let you know when I have De sinu patris transcribed as well. --Elonka 07:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Adam Bishop. You have new messages at Elonka's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Adam Bishop,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, I found you listed on the list of Wikipedians fluent in French. Can you give me a translation of the following:
Braquehais participe cependant à la naissance du photojournalisme par l’originalité de sa production qui comporte au total près de 140 clichés de la Commune.
The original source is here, and it will be used for the Bruno Braquehais article.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, there! I've noticed that You're good at Latin and thus I decided to ask you for help. A friend of mine says that my translation of this vulgar inscription (published in: C. I. L. III 9860) isn't correct and I would like to know is it so.
Judex datus a Flavio Valerio Constantio (viro clarissimo?) P(residi) P(rovinciae) Delm(atie) finis inter Salviatas et Stridonenses determinavit.
A judge given by Flavius Valerius Constantius, a very famous man (who is) a governor of Damlatia, have determined the borders between the Salviatae (inhabitants of the municipium of Salvium) and the Stridonians.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Long time, no talk. (Life direction's changed a bit, don't really have the time or expertise nowadays to keep up with Armenian Cilicia etc.) Anyway, I hope your current position is going well, but I wanted to point out Hisnrh(talk·contribs·count·logs·page moves·block log); a bit self-promotional, but the edits look useful. I don't know if she'd appreciate word from a fellow academic. Best, Choess (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not actually that disturbed by the promotional aspect...the content seems (you could judge better than I) relevant and not particularly unbalanced, and as you just implied, having your work cited in Wikipedia multiple times and a euro will get you a baguette (but won't move the needle at ISI). And it's a bit of a pleasant shock to see polished writing showing up in one's watchlist that isn't presumptively copyvio! Choess (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
The Battle of Vimy Ridge was a First World War battle in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region of France between four divisions of the Canadian Corps and three divisions of the German Sixth Army. It lasted from 9 to 12 April 1917, as part of the opening phase of the British-led Battle of Arras, a diversionary attack for the French Nivelle Offensive. The Canadian objective was to take the German-held high ground along an escarpment at the northern end of the offensive. Supported by a creeping barrage, the Canadians captured most of the ridge on 9 April. The town of Thélus fell on the 10th, as did the crest of the ridge once the Canadians overcame a salient of considerable German resistance. The final objective, a fortified knoll near Givenchy-en-Gohelle, fell to the Canadians on 12 April, and the Germans retreated to the Oppy–Méricourt line. Canadian success is attributed to technical and tactical innovations, meticulous planning and training, and powerful artillery support, and the failure of the Germans to properly apply their new defensive doctrine. For the first time all four divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force fought together and the battle remains a Canadian symbol of achievement and sacrifice; the battleground now contains the Canadian National Vimy Memorial. (more...)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not trying to POV-pushing (Khwarazmian dynasty) but to restore version before User:BozokluAdam came. There's high possibility he's a SP, I've noticed other admins about it. Cheers. --109.165.190.219 (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not a sockpuppet or etc. Administrators can check all my IPs and edits. It's the first time that I signed up Wikipedia. And I said before, I'm a Turcologist who is mainly interested in Turkic history, culture and languages. Therefore, I want to contribute to the articles related to Turkic history, culture and people. And my resources are reliable and published on Google Books. I also discussed my changes on Talk pages and make explanation for their verifiability. You can check them. In the meantime, I'm suspicious of unregistered user 109.165.190.219 whether s/he might be of a sockpuppet? Thanks in advance. BozokluAdam (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can you please check the Talk page of Babur, please? A few editors claim that the sources added by me aren't reliable whereas they don't provide any (reliable or unreliable) dissenting sources. And they just undo the changes, and delete the resources. According to the concept of Wikipedia, I'm sure that the sources added by me are reliable ones. I explained them on Talk page as well. Please check the following pages and make a decision as a neutral person to arbitrate this disagreement. I'm tired of that: Talk:Babur#Babur.27s_Ethnicity_with_Reputable_Resources and Talk:Babur#Copyvio_in_the_lead. Regards. BozokluAdam (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good day sir! Just a minor question, do you have any source of how Joan of Arc was apparently, inspired by Joanna of Flanders? If not thank you.--GoShow (...............) 16:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hello Adam Bishop!
I recently posted a question on The Reference-desk about the rights of acknowledged illegitimate children in Ancien Regime France. You seem to have knowledge in the question and participated, but the question has now been archived, and perhaps you did not have time to see that I specified it on your request, which may make it easier (or perhaps more interesting?) to answer, as you did ask for a clarification, I thought that it would help.
The situation is as follows:
a married French nobleman in the 1730s, who has two sons with his wife, also has two sons with his acknowledged actress-mistress, and one daughter from a secret affair with an unmarried noblewoman who has runaway from her family and secretly lives on an allowance from him. The nobleman (he is a marquess) choose to recognise all three of his own free will and have them brought up on his expense.
My question is: was it possible for him to recognise them legally in some way, was there a procedure? I have read that Louis XIV had some sort of declaration made when he acknowledged his "bastards" with Montespan. And: did the acknowledgement in itself give them some sort of rights or informal social status? Was the situation of the daughter different in some way, because her mother was noble?
I you have an answer, I would be very grateful if you would be willing to help - actually, this does have some real importance to me. Thank you very much!--Aciram (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for your answer on my question of Illegitimate children! I am sorry for my late reply. I thank you for your tip, and I will ask User:John Kenney if he/she would be willing to help. What I am specifically interested in is this: you say that it was possible for a father to acknowledge his illegitimate children, and that he would thereafter be recognized as their father - in they eyes of the law?
My question is, then, what did he actually do to "acknowledge" them? How did he go about in performing this acknowledgement juridically? Was this a legal act in some way, as he was afterwards recognized as their father? Was there paperwork of some sort?
Or was this acknowledgement simply a completely informal affair, with only social importance and no juridical acknowledgement or paperwork what so ever? My question whether the case of the daughter was different was caused by the fact that the law was after all different for nobles and no nobles, but perhaps she would not be considered to be noble.
There is one other matter, and perhaps the law was the same in this case no matter time period: A woman was during this period placed under the guardianship under the nearest male relative, was she not? Then who would be guardian of the daughter in this case? I suppose the father, because he acknowledged her, but afterwards? Would it be her (legitimate) half brother, because he was the eldest male relative after the death of their father?
I thought I should ask just in case you had more to add after this. Thank you very much!--Aciram (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for all your helpful answers! I miss you on this page [[7]]. But I do believe that we are in agreement. I have begun the first changes of the article. Please give me moral support if necessary. Could I ask you to change the title of the article to "Women in ACTIVE warfare in the medieval era"? --Aciram (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
You Claim That Someone Made Up What Was Said On Three Different wikipedia Articles.edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your saying that one person made all this up. That's not what everyone else told me. What prove do you have that this guy made the edit. Why dont you just shut up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I never said I dont believe It's a lie. I want to know where they got the source. So I can read as proof. There are three different articles that say Zeus returned the Cyclops from Hades. They did'nt say he restored them to life. It's not just the Cyclops page that said this. Your helping me by being negitive.
I dont believe what Gold Dragon put was a lie. Because two other's put that infromation in. One earlier then him. What I been asking for is the source. I'm not trying to dissprove what they said to me. I'm trying to prove it to my self. And I never told you to take that off the Cyclops page. Put that back. What you did to me was insault me. Which is why I got angry. I'm not saying the article is not true. I'm asking for the source and no one is telling me it.
Listen to yourself. You sound like a 16 year old. That's why I got angry. Sorry about snaping on you. I read on Wiki Doc on Aslcepius. These contributer's are still working. The guy that wrote Asclepius told me he read it somewhere but he didnt tell me where. Sorry about calling you a lier. But your not helping me. I read this in the past on a Greek Mythology website. However the site is. Not their anymore. The Cyclopes soul's still live under the volcano mount Etna. I know that. Stop argueing with me.
If you disagree, the proper action is to list the reasons you disagree and present any evidence you have. Deleting statements you disagree with is completely unacceptable behavior.
This is clearly against the rules. You have been warned. Repeating this action will result in a request for Administrative actions against you. StuRat (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Whatever. Why don't you just stick to the desks where you actually know something, whichever ones those might be? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I see that you are an Admin. I can't imagine how that ever happened, as Admins are supposed to know the rules and follow them. You appear to be completely unqualified for that position and should be removed from that post immediately. Looking through your contributions, I see you regularly delete large, non-trolling posts to articles without explanation. This is also unacceptable.
And, you don't even say what is wrong with my posts, much less prove that they are wrong. Also completely unacceptable behavior in an editor, much less an Admin. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Imagine if I started answering questions on the computer or math desks. I took some math classes in high school; surely I am qualified to answer those questions. Of course, that would simply annoy people, because anything I could say would be so nonsensical that it would not even be wrong. The same is true for your posts on the Humanities desk. Deleting them can only benefit the project. (And being an admin doesn't seem relevant here...I actually spent the few seconds to undo your edits the old fashioned way.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
How can you be so completely unfamiliar with the rules against deleting posts on non-article pages ? You can't simple delete comments because you disagree. This is one of the most basic rules of Wikipedia behavior, and yet you seem to be completely ignorant of it. What would the Ref Desk, and the rest of the non-article pages, be like if everyone did that ? Nothing but constant edit wars. Use a little common sense.
Also, how incredibly rude you are to delete long contributions to article pages without even the least effort to comment on why you deleted it. How would you feel if your contributions were treated like that ? StuRat (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
If you exercised a little common sense yourself and stopped posting ridiculous answers to the humanities desk, we wouldn't have this problem. Also, troll posts are deleted all the time. I think I'm being rather generous in suggesting you're trolling, rather than the other possibility. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Not sure what "the other possibility" is, but you seem to define any post you disagree with as "trolling". That's not what it means, it refers to a post intended to cause disruption, and my posts certainly aren't that. I have yet to see anything from you on what you disagree with and why, much less why you think they are trolling. I suggest you read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith before mislabeling anyone else as a troll. StuRat (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
One other possibility, of course, is that you're an idiot. (You're probably not an idiot.) Thanks for the lecture on policy; I've only been an admin for 10 years, I guess I'm still getting used to this whole Wikipedia thing. If you are so inclined, you can raise your concerns somewhere more public. I'm not sure what we're accomplishing this way. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, if you don't continue to delete anything you disagree with and label it trolling, and refrain from personal attacks, then we've accomplished quite a bit here. However, if you continue to do so, then, yes, I will need to escalate. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Bonjour Adam Bishop j'aimerais pouvoir unifier ce compte Argosy toutefois il reste entre autre ce compte qui n'a aucune contributions sur Wikipedia en langue latine qui ne me permettrait pas jusqu'a maintenant d'effectuer ce type d'opération. Merci beaucoup pour votre aide. Cordialement. Argosy (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Bonjour Argosy, j'ai renommé l'autre Argosy. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Adam Bishop. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! How are you? Thank you for replying to my Titanic question. But I need your help again. I created Category:Deaths from hypertension because one of the Titanic officers died of hypertension. But he's the only one listed there. Was I right to create the category or it should be deleted? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello Adam, la:Usor:LucienBOT has been nearly inactive over the last months. Could you please remove the bot flag, to be on the safe side? Thank you in advance! --UV (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot! --UV (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You might want to keep an eye on this. Content looks unexceptionable to my untutored eye, but it was recently created by a user currently subject to RFC for engaging in creative history. Choess (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello,
Michael Bardot was wrting an article on William the Carpenter back in 2009. Did he ever finish it? Curious!
Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Happy Holidays
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 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I'm working on a project concerning Wikipedia as a digital resource and the problems of open source collaboration in regards to encyclopedic sites like Wikipedia that at first glance seem to be useful in terms of garnering information. I was wondering, as a PhD scholar in medieval studies, how you find working with others who do not have the same level of education. Can it become a constant battle over "who's right" or is it truly a communal effort where people are willing to consider other opinions, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eirwen29 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good day Adam Bishop,
During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.
Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.
If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Adam,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
Best regards, — Hex(❝?!❞) 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Are you Roman Catholic, or do you just happen to know enough about Roman Catholicism in order to tease Campus Crusade when you considered yourself an "asshole" in college? Did your claims sound convincing enough? How did Campus Crusade respond? What do you mean by Campus Crusade as being "the worst"? The worst of what? The way you phrase it, you make it sound like Campus Crusade is making Christianity appear more united than what it really is. If that is the case, then are you suggesting Christianity is really divided on just about everything? And if that is the case, could it be that it is not possible for one to become a Christian of the lowest common denominator because there is no lowest common denominator or cohesion? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, there is currently a discussion at AN [9] about a disruptive IP editor with whom you have been involved.Jeppiz (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
If you have a moment. . . I have translated:
Istius rothari regis temporibus ortum est lumen in tenebris; per quem supradicti langobardi ad cannonicam tenderunt certamina et sacerdotum facti sunt adiutores.
as:
In the time of King Rothari, a light arose in the darkness, by which the aforementioned Lombards strove for rules and became priests and helpers.
Does that seem right to you? The part I really don't get is "cannonicam tenderunt certamina". Srnec (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
"In the time of King Rothari, a light arose in the darkness; through him, the aforementioned Lombards strove for canonical rules and became helpers of priests." It must be "ad cannonica certamina" (according to Google). "Per quem" should refer to Rothari, since "lumen" is neuter (which would require "per quod"). "Tendere" does mean "strive" but here it means something more like "they settled on", "they adopted" (judging from Edictum Rothari they adopted a written code of their own laws, not Roman civil law or canon law). "Sacerdotum" is genitive plural, so they became "helpers of priests". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I thought "cannonicam" was a mistake. I should have caught "sacerdotum". The article, in case you are wondering, is Chronicon Gothanum. Srnec (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Neat! I'm impressed that you can still work on articles like that. I can never motivate myself to work in article space anymore... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings, Adam Bishop/archive11! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
By (LLoyd) George, I think it's Mackenzie Kingedit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Okay, I'm mostly done citing up Crusades. What is it missing? I will admit, I don't have near the energy for this article as I did for Middle Ages... just not the drive to keep working on it. Is it at least in acceptable shape? I can't really summon the energy to do much more on it, but if it's close to GA status, I could probably work a bit more. FA is probably beyond my interest level, quite honestly. I'd rather get back to working on my Norman conquest stuff. (And I've got another bad-boy clergyman that is screaming at me to get him to FA status... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, it's certainly a vast improvement. I'll see if I can find the time to do some more work on it...although I'm not sure I have the energy for it either (especially considering that for a topic like this, someone is going to come along and muck it up eventually). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Adam, how are you? Apparently Aaron is encyclopedicaly not a real person. I mention this because the Sacerdotes (priest ) category was removed over at the Latin wiki and would like to have it back in place. Best regards. --Jondel (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
The issue is resolved now.--Jondel (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Why would you move the talk page of "North American Martyrs" without including my comments? That's dishonest at best. My comments include the reason for moving it back to it's original title, which clearly falls within Wikipedia guidelines for naming articles.
These martyrs may very well be know as in Canadian Martyrs in Canada, but internationally, the more common name by far is "North American Martyrs." Wikipedia is not a place for provincialism or nationalism. --Wikiddingme (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sorry... didn't see your comments on the talk page... thought you just did that arbitrarily. I'll take a deep breath... I left my reasons for reverting the article back to its original title on the talk page. Best regards, --Wikiddingme (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Laura Secord (1775–1868) was a Canadian heroine of the War of 1812, who undertook a 20-mile (32 km) walk out of American-occupied territory to warn British forces of an impending American attack. Secord's husband James was wounded at the Battle of Queenston Heights in 1812, and was still recovering when the Americans invaded the Niagara Peninsula in 1813. During the occupation, Secord learned of a planned American attack, and stole away on the morning of 23 June to inform Lieutenant James FitzGibbon in the territory still controlled by the British. The information helped the British and their Mohawk warrior allies repel the invading Americans at the Battle of Beaver Dams. Her contribution to the war was little known during her lifetime, but since her death she has been frequently honoured by Canada. Honours bestowed on her include schools and a chocolate company named after her, as well as monuments, a museum, a memorial stamp, and a statue at the Valiants Memorial in the Canadian capital. Her story has taken on mythological overtones in her home country, with many embellished versions of the tale, and she is the subject of books, poetry, and plays. (Full article...)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Adam, and I'll join you if I may substitute an iced tea for my climate. This is a belated display of courtesy, as I felt rather abashed this morning in correcting a response of yours on a Humanities RD query. I'd have contacted you first on your Talk page had I not been overcome by an attack of OCD (or ADD, not a formal Dx yet) making me uneasy about the potential of all the indents of possibly subsequent responses getting all out of sequence. You're so wonderfully knowledgeable and have helped countless times with my esoteric (?) queries, I want to assure you of my continued regard for you and your contributions from whom and from which I continue to learn. On the other hand, it's something of a comfort that I've picked up some significant content in my going-on-14 years working in an historical archives. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
WikiProject Military history coordinator electionedit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill[talk] 17:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've unwatched the page... it became too painful to watch. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yeah...I'm still watching it, but I know I will never actually contribute to the article again. Oh well. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion
With all due respect, are you seriously blocking bugs for saying he "lost you at boulangerie"? μηδείς (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I blocked him for being useless. Blocking is a joke anyway, I'm sure it will be reversed momentarily. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC
"I'm sure it will be reversed presently." (He'll stay blocked "momentarily" - for a short time - but the reversal action will be done in a short time, not for a short time.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. I thought/think your userpage is pretty cool! (E.g., I never knew who Heidi Montag was. Now I do, and I feel so blessed ! ;)) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'd have been tempted to do so for this anyway, so I'm just as glad someone else did before I could overreact. —Darkwind (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think you already overeacted...as did Adam.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Baseball and Tom Lehrer lyrics seem useful to me,[10] but --- even if they weren't --- they seem a pretty weak explanation for a block.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
This could well be an abuse of tools. I began an AN report on this but decided that if Bugs wants to wait it out and endure the continued incivility of the blocking admin that seems to be grave dancing, then screw it. Why bother.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Bishop said above that his block is a joke, so I guess everyone can kick back and laugh. Ho ho ho.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
By "Blocking is a joke anyway", Adam clearly means that blocking is not taken seriously on the WP, not that blocking is "humorous". (Intentional misinterpretation to impugn someone is the worst kind of incivility that isn't often-enough recognized as incivility. You should therefore shut your trap.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I love this quote: "...incivility. You should therefore shut your trap."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
* Good Block I doubt anyone is able to find a constructive edit BB has made to the article space. A quick search finds nothing much besides: a) hia original research/opinion of the plot of a movie or TV show. b) additions of facts or trivia that are improperly referenced by external links. In either case, when taken as a whole, it can be nothing less than a competency issue or at best complete disregard for even minimal standards of article writing. 94.68.228.99 (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Adam, I've unblocked Baseball Bugs. I don't want to increase the drama, but if you wish me to start a topic at WP:AN to review my unblock, I will. It's up to you. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It's time for you to resign your bit. If you don't, or unless you come up with an exceptionally good explanation, I will ask ArbCom to de-sysop you, and I don't think there is much doubt that they will do it. Looie496 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
After reading over the statements on this case, I have to disagree. It was an aberration, not typical behavior. LizRead!Talk! 16:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I felt, since this is Wikipedia, that your talk page should reflect a NPOV. I expect to see you back editing in crusades related articles soon. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The arbitration request that you have been involved in has been declined. The comments that the arbitrators have made may be useful for proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 00:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I originally posted this on another user's talk page; but since she seems to be inactive at the moment, I thought I'd run it by you, since you're a member of WikiProject Middle Ages whom I've seen hanging around at the ref desks:
I'm in need of an opinion and really can't think of anyone else to ask. What do you think of the article Bicorn (monster)? It seems to me a mess of unsourced dubious information and possible hoaxery (the images in particular; I can't find any institution that might correspond to the "Museum of Archeology, Dresden") that should probably be stubbified to something like this version from four years ago, but I'm not quite bold enough to do so without support. Then, of course, information could be added about Lydgate's Bycorne and Chychevache, which seems to be the locus classicus for the appearance of this beast in English literature, and whatever else might be reliably sourced. (Or it might be merged with Chichevache to produce something like the superior French WP article.) I was alerted to the article by its claim that the beast was envisioned as unicornlike, for which I can find no evidence. What's your take on all this?
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there. I'm dropping off this note to let you know that I recently used one of your photographs from Nantes Cathedral in an article. The image I used was of a war memorial tablet, this one. The article I used it in was memorial tablets to the British Empire dead of the First World War. You took that photograph 2 years ago. What I'm trying to do is find the best place to ask French Wikipedians (and Belgian ones as well) to get photographs of the other memorial tablets (there are around 23 in different French cathedrals and churches). While looking into who took the photos already used in the articles, I noticed that you speak French and was hoping you might be willing to ask over on Commons or even on the French Wikipedia about this. What I'm looking for in particular is someone in or near Amiens who is willing to take photographs of the 6 memorial tablets in Amiens Cathedral. It is a bit of a long shot, but thought it worth asking. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I raised a discussion on merging a List of religious leaders in 1220 (and the one other year-list for that century) into List of 13th-century religious leaders. As is normally done, a notice on the list pointed to a discussion on the talk of the target list. After no objections and a week's time, I closed the discussion. Since things could want to point to the old list I did not delete it, but made it a redirect to the new.
User:Adam Bishop now reverted the redirect for the old content. (Leaving for the moment all the indiscriminate collection of information that was also added back in.) What is standard procedure for disliking the result of a discussion, even if you did not take part in it? Maybe also inform him too, if that seem appropriate. tahcchat 03:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
it appears the merge discussion had reached a consensus (of 3) and the consensus was acted on. The other editor's rationale does not seem very rooted in policy, its an "I like it!" !vote. So even if the other editor had known about and participated in the discussion, at 3:1 it would still seem the consensus for merge would carry. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
I was not aware of the discussion which took place on a page I was not watching and did not even know existed. I also didn't notice the changes made to the 1220 article, and no mention of the merge was made on that article's talk page. Consequently, no one involved in editing the 1220 page could have had any input into the merge. It is not a question of "disliking" the discussion - no discussion took place at all in any place where I or anyone else could reasonably be expected to find it. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
It would have been undesirable to put a notice on the talk page because (1) it is not the standard place to put a merge-to template (2) anyone with Talk:List of religious leaders in 1220 set to show on their watchlist also has List of religious leaders in 1220 on it too (3) people more often come across any article then that article's talk page. Because of (2) anyone involved in editing the 1220 page could have had input on the merge-- they had only to add it (either the list or its talk) to their watchlist to see this edit. Yes, a discussion took place at Talk:List of 13th-century religious leaders#Merger proposal; it is still a discussion even if no there objects to the plan.
As TheRedPenOfDoom points out, your one objection would still not have changed the result. I am correcting your objection. If you still want to fight this use WP:Third opinion, not an WP:Edit war. 03:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, all I can say is I never noticed that edit, I suppose thanks to my sporadic watchlist-checking. Still would have been nice to inform the article's main contributor directly...but anyway I'll use the appropriate channels for objecting... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is there a way to find out the current list of admins who are also have an MD degree, or to obtain the current list. 209.3.238.61 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi Adam Bishop! The first ever Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 across the United States and Canada - including Toronto! Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join!
Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Happy Holidays
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 23:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
/* Speedy deletion nomination of Run Sheldon & TouchMail */edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I need your help on activities of new user, who is nominating speedy page deletion of two pages that are notable TouchMail and Run Sheldon. Can you please look into this and do needful. Anishwiki12 (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This IP, 68.14.160.191,[11] has removed references and referenced information from the Crusades article and has chose to engage in discussion on the talk page. Would you be interested in participating? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I know. But I just thought it might be a good thing to be able to talk in person with those who are passionate about the middle ages, and who might have vast knowledge about it. I'm frequently coming across questions related to Medieval that needs answering or discussion.
I thought it might be great sometimes asking medieval-related questions to those I know will (most likely) appreciate the questions I ask and be eager to discuss.
As you can see, I have now gotten my head around how to use the talk pages ;)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Adam, I've just removed this message placed on your user page rather than your talk page. Do with it what you will. Graham87 04:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, I just posted a question on the humanities reference desk, regarding the apparent theological significance of the evolution vs creation debate. Given that you have a doctorate of philosophy, I'd love for you to go there and provide your $0.02 . Thanks :-) 124.181.239.69 (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Haha, no thanks :) Arguing about creationism on the Internet was fun when I was 15, but I have better ways to waste my time now! Adam Bishop (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am requesting the deletion of this userbox I created using the codes of an old friend's userspace which was made in custom form: Template:Gun control supporter
Since it was not made properly, I request it be deleted. Thanks and sorry for taking away from your time.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Moldowa. Since you had some involvement with the Moldowa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 07:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What is your opinion concerning these sources?[12] --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well I can't really read Turkish but that appears to be a newspaper website, and the ultimate conclusion is that Saladin was part Arab, part Turk, and part Kurd. Of course, that is the most likely scenario, but a modern newspaper is not a good source for it... Adam Bishop (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, Adam.
As you probably know, I recently made a small edit to the Muslim conquests article. It was speedily removed minutes afterwards by Kansas Bear, demanding a source, which I tried to provide, which he rejected and removed once again, upon which I tried to refine and improve. Before I had a chance to respond to his demands or clarify (threatening to report me to Wikipedia administration on "falsifying" information), he had already notified someone else who removed the edit for him once more. I am not the most familiar in Wikipedian guidelines, so I cannot truly pass judgement, but I am not sure why this user for some reason seems so hostile to me. It was not my intention to offend Kansas (or perhaps his religion, I do not know), and I made the edit only in an effort to improve the article, not to provide what he insists is a "fake source", as he has repeatedly accused me of doing.
When going to his talk page, I could not help but notice that Kansas seems to have engaged in very lengthy disagreements with many other users over similar issues, some quite recently, such as on the Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent. Personally, I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to engage in one myself with him, over this or any other article that he is careful to protect, and only wish to resolve the issue as soon as possible. Torontas (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Adam, I find it quite odd that Torontas can not or will not provide the quote from the source for his edit. Instead, he has written paragraphs of accusations at Callanecc's talk page.[13] as well as here! There should be no need for mediation unless Torontas can provide evidence that said source mentions "Arab Christians", plain and simple. "After accusing me of falsifying information and deliberately providing a "fake source", and before I had a chance to respond to his harsh attacks or at least clarify, he had already reported me and next had a friend of his remove the edit altogether once more, something I have not attempted to contest out of wariness of further escalating this debate.". IF Torontas has been falsely accused then I would strongly suggest that he post his evidence on the Muslim conquests talk page.
"...or perhaps his religion". LMAO! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Here[14], Torontas, who is unable to provide his evidence, is asking HistoryofIran to post on the Muslim conquests talk page. And here, [15] Denisarona is being brought in. Pity he just can not post there himself! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
I see this is already being discussed at Muslim conquests, but I want to say that this is not a "fake source", which sounds like Torontas invented it entirely. It's certainly a real source, so the accusation is unfounded (and a bit bizarre). Whether the source is appropriate, or actually says what it is being quoted for, is another matter...but I think we should go back to the basics and at least recognize that this is a real book. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Adam. I know you keep a careful eye on us, so you probably know already that we have been electing new magistratus (see la:VP:PM). Three will have been elected by this evening, and a fourth four days later. I hope you are willing and able to give them their new tools? The three, on whom you could operate any time now, are la:Usor:Alexander Gerashchenko, la:Usor:Utilo, la:Usor:Schulz-Hameln. The fourth is la:Usor:Lesgles. Thanks for your help! Andrew Dalby 15:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Original Barnstar
Hello, I need some information.
"In the winter of 1168, Amalric again attacked Egypt, and Shawar switched alliances again, this time going back to Shirkuh, who he had betrayed in 1164. Shirkuh and Shawar attempted to force the Crusader garrison out of Egypt, but Amalric pressed on, until his army was camped south of Fustat (the remnants of which are today in what is known as Old Cairo)."
Were french crusaders in Hangigng Church(El Muallaqa) ?
That's a good question...I'm not sure. I guess they could have visited it while they were in Cairo. I think I remember that the relationship between the crusaders and the Copts was not very good. The Copts had a relatively good position in Islamic Egypt and didn't want the crusaders to interrupt it, and the crusaders thought they were too loyal to the Muslims and didn't trust them. So it's possible that they were hostile to each other when the crusaders were in Egypt, and the crusaders didn't visit their churches. But I don't really know! Adam Bishop (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I would really appreciate it if someone with some knowledge about the Crusades took a look here, Thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
WikiProject Military history coordinator electionedit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Adam, there is a matter I wish to discuss with you re a certain article. Contact me here at your earliest convenience. Thank you. jeannegriffin@hotmail.it --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Happy Holidays
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 14:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I believe my Article was notable enough this timeedit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. I believe my Article was notable enough this time however it is deleted without giving me any satisfactory explanation. The procedure i have followed: Make draft, join chat and spend 1 whole day to edit and compose excellent article based on suggestion and edits by experts at the chat, submit draft, draft accepted, draft reviewed and edited by WikiProject_Video_games editor and completely published. Then i ask chat again about isn’t this too much edit? then primefac opens speedy delete then it is deleted without giving me any explanation in matter of minutes. If you check the issue i appreciate ty very much : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonsterMMORPG . And there were not any discussion it was deleted immediately. One more notice: I checked same genre games articles and majority of them have way more less authority references and even some have 0 references. Thank you very much for your help. OnlineGamesExpert (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Prussians. Since you had some involvement with the Prussians redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hello from the team at Featured article review!edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.
Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Adam- I am attempting to create a Wikipedia Page for Manjit Minhas, I see back in 2010 someone else tried to create a page for her and you deleted it. I just wanted to contact you before I try to create the page. In my bbazos/sandbox I laid out the page I created for her. Would you mind taking a look and let me know if it looks OK to actually create a page on Wikipedia? If not, please advise what I can do to modify the page so I can publish it. Thank you very much. Bbazos (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Awesome! Thank you so much for your response. I am going to give it a try! Bbazos (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Adam Bishop,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Argive for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have a question about my account. I edited Wikipedia for about five/six years up until I took a break circa 2010. My previous account, User:Karrmann, I used throughout that time when I was a teenager in middle school and high school. Now that I have returned to Wikipedia after my absence as an adult I created this new account because I don't want to be associated with that old account. That old account was in good standing. I was never blocked or banned, or ever had any conflicts or issues with admins. I just don't want to be associated with the edits and stuff I made ten years ago when I was 14, kind of like when people take five year old drunk pictures off of their Facebook accounts. However I want to do this without violating WP:SOCK, I'm trying to do this all above board. Can you help me? Reattacollector (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thanks for the laugh! There's a handful of (usually profoundly unfunny) users who attempt to use levity at every turn on the reference desks, but most fail to utilize it with the subtlety you employed here in underscoring a substantive point, which made it all the more amusing. Snowlet's rap 02:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You saw those redirects and were just curious, Adam?[16] We must have totally different views of WP:BLP. Compare [17]. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fakhr al-Mulk. Since you had some involvement with the Fakhr al-Mulk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 17:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC) }}Reply
Hello, Adam Bishop. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
—Darkwind (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
