User talk:Dinkytown/Archives-2009

Regarding Prince

That's so disappointing! Oh well, thanks for the information. Cheers, Uyvsdi (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Samis

I wasn't really trying to edit war. Whoever keeps doing it doesn't seem willing to discuss it themselves. They just sorta divebomb the thing, start calling what they don't like vandalism, and changing it. It's coming off as a little territorial. Myself, I couldn't care less what pictures are up there, but I just didn't feel that was the way to go about making a big change. If they change it back, I'll call for discussion before reverting again. --Leodmacleod (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Renée Zellweger

Ok thanks. There was nothing about the Finnish names when I edited the Renée Zellweger article. The source must have been edited... --Johannamo (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK nom for Morea Revolt

Hi. I've nominated Morea Revolt (1453), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Constantine ✍ 23:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Morea Revolt (1453)

On April 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Morea Revolt (1453), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

∗ \ / (⁂) 07:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Constantinople 1432

The German equivalent of the page Sieges of Constantinople gives also an Ottoman Siege of the city in 1432? And this page (http://www.answers.com/topic/1432) says: ‘Constantinople withstands a siege by the Ottoman sultan Murad II, who withdraws to Adrianople after a stubborn defense by the Byzantine emperor John VII Palaeologus.’ So are you sure there was no siege? [Unisigned by 86.87.73.104]

'Answers' is simply wrong. They got it confused with the year 1422, where there was a siege. Ostrogorsky's, History of the Byzantine State - a solid source, mentions nothing. 'Answers' is not a serious source. If you find a more reliable source, then put it in. Otherwise, it's their mistake. Dinkytown 23:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your signature [1]

Please read this article. Use 4 ~ character instead typing. Thank you!B@xter⁹ 06:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I thought you dont know this trick. :) It was just a suggestion, I think it is much easier to reach other users with this form. Cheers--B@xter⁹ 17:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I did not know that it can be turned off! :) XD--B@xter⁹ 17:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine civil war

Hello Dinkytown! As you can see, the Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 article is complete. I have requested a peer review at WPMILHIST, so if you are interested, please write your opinion. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, and thanks for the thumbs up! There is also a further reason to thank you, for although it was an article I intended to write ever since I wrote the Apokaukos article, I would probably never have gotten myself to sit down and realize it if you hadn't started it. So I'm doubly glad you enjoy it. :) I am aware of the problem with the 1352-1354 conflict. The problem is, scholarly usage itself is problematic: the ODB for instance or Nicol himself clearly regard the civil war of 1341-47 as a separate affair - indeed, the ODB explicitly mentions only one "Civil War", and that is the one of 1341-47. Other sources (e.g. Laiou) list it as "the civil war of 1341-54", but then go on saying that "the civil war" ended in 1347, effectively implying that the later affair was a different sort of conflict. As I understand it, with the formal acceptance of Kantakouzenos as emperor, the one conflict ends. The one after was fought from different starting positions for each of the protagonists. I have tried to address the problem by including a reference to the later conflict; it can easily be expanded in detail to cover a couple of paragraphs. I'll think the issue over either way before nominating it for A class or FA. Your suggestions as to content/improvements are always welcome in the process. For my part however, I'd say "Long live the Laskarids! Down with the Palaiologoi!" Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Most Congratulations

I want to thank you tremendously for your great work on the two great Byzantine civil wars, in fact I was previously thinking about writing articles about such. I was quite shocked to see them on "did you know". You did an absolutely fantastical job on it. I previously transcribed some of my research on the Byzantine Civil wars of 1321-1328 and 1341-1347 on to the Byzantine empire article however it was transcribed from there to the History of the Byzantine Empire. one of the reasons I did not create a Byzantine Civil war article was for the fact I had only one good book regarding the Byzantine Empire (a quite insightful but not great in covering each time period in an oceans depth. Nevertheless it takes a man truly committed to spreading knowledge to create such two in depth articles. My hat is off to you. Also as you probably all ready know there was a third but much smaller civil war in Byzantium starting in 1376 and ending in 1379, in which the Byzantine Empire was a play house for foreign interests. Your historical esoteric knowledge is irreplaceable. By the way if you need any help in writing another Byzantine article I would be honored to be of service. --Zaharous (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You know as strange as it may seem the Idea of writing an article on the third one never crossed my mind. Although the information on this more minor civil war seems negligible compared to the previous two. I think with enough research one could make a healthy article out of it. I predict it should take me no more than three days to complete it. I probably will compile my research here before I transfer it here. If you would like to transfigure the writing please feel more than welcome to. --Zaharous (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Im almost done with it. Although I got distracted and started reading other things it still has a healthy composition. If you would like to add on here you as always may feel free too. However I am still curious if to whether or not I should put the conflicts before and after the detainment of Andronicus IV John V Palaiologos together. The article now is of a healthy stature although I think it could use more precise dates. However this its lacking is completely my fault. Also when I was looking in to the third civil war I found out there was actually a fourth one when the son of Andronicus revolted against his grandfather, its quite ridiculous. Anyways take care. --Zaharous (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you reverting section "Ethical Issues"? There is no ethical issues

It is utterly deplorable to even allow this garbage into article. Just because Serbs committed vast majority of crimes, there is no ethical issues to put majority of their indictees on trial. This article has been hijacked by Serb editors and their sympathisers (so called "sources" and "commentators") who want to taint the credibility of the International Criminal Tribunal. I removed that section and then you returned it into article. What a shame.24.82.174.79 (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

24.82.174.79 - I didn't read the paragraph in detail, but you didn't state why you removed the material. Yes, the section needed sources, but you should have stated that. If you have an issue with the material, discuss it on the talk page. Dinkytown (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Hello, Dinkytown. You have new messages at Baxter9's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Harpercollage

First, please apologize for the late answer. Yes, I realized that he made a clown about me when I saw the clerk's comment at the edit summary. However I think it was a genius idea from him to hack the usernames. :)--B@xter⁹ 15:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are likely to be blocked if you continue edit warring and making threats on Ethnic groups in Europe. You are taking no notice of the discussions on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The author of the above is subject to a complaint regarding threats and other issues. Please see ANI#User:Mathsci and User:Slrubenstein for details. Dinkytown (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just let you know

Since you're the reporter of the ANI thread, ANI#User:Mathsci and User:Slrubenstein, I feel obliged to inform you of this repeated alteration by Mathsci without your permission.[2][3] Have a good day.--Caspian blue 13:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation of Byzantine Empire

Cool, and I shall.. I'm glad you understand why I did what I did and how I went about it. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Byzantine Empire. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.