User talk:Agricolae

Hi. I noted your post on Lobsterthermidor's talk page about the use of the word "armorial". Browsing today, I came across Gorges family which includes several mentions of "armourials". I guess the same correction to "arms" would be relevant here, but am not certain.

I think the book title Burke's Armorials (1884) in the Refs and Sources sections may be wrong too. I have a pdf copy of The General Armory by Burke (1884), which matches the reference cited to it (p. 413) - it's from here: https://archive.org/details/generalarmoryofe00burk  —SMALLJIM  19:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of sloppy usage, with all the more confusion being added by the use of armorial as an adjective - 'armorial bearings' with it used as an adjective is a legitimate alternative to coat of arms, but armorial alone, as a noun, is not. In bibliographical form, the Burke collection could be called (with a bit of liberty) Burke's Armorial, but not Burke's Armorials, but there is no good reason not to name it correctly. I will give the page a look. Agricolae (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup, the whole section needs rewritten - it is standard Lobsterthermidor coat-racking - the sentence is about whether Hugh de Morville was a member of the same Morville family that held Knighton - completely irrelevant to the Gorges family. Agricolae (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good explanation - if I come across the term again, I'll change it myself. Regarding the rest I'm keeping shtum until the current discussions on his talk page/sub-page come to an end.  —SMALLJIM  11:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Johnson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capture of Cambridge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of Cambridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capture of Oxford is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of Oxford until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Siege of Cardiff is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Cardiff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source says that Lord de Mauley and his wife have no children. The second source say that George is his brother.

How many clues do you need?

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about drawing deductions from clues. We don't get to draw our own conclusions. Agricolae (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's about compiling information, and this is two pieces of info that taken together can only mean one thing.

Peerage News is not published by Lord de Mauley. NYT is also "self-published" then.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused between independence - whether the material is published by the subject or someone associated with the subject - and self-published, meaning that that the person who wrote it is the one who published it, with no separate editorial review. When the New York Times publishes something, it is first written by the reporter, and then it undergoes review and editing by a separate person, the editor, who assesses it for both accuracy and noteworthiness. That does not happen on blogs, personal websites, subsidy-published books, etc., where anyone can say absolutely anything they want, whether it is untrue, misleading or just uninteresting trivia. Anything that is 'just one person's opinion' falls short of reliability and noteworthiness standards. It is all moot though, because -

WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is exactly what you are doing here, and it is not appropriate. Agricolae (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, and don't allege that I am "forcing" anything. I am adding sources as I find them. I could sneak it into the article, but that would be gaming.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you put the same thing in three times, in the face of objection and in spite of an ongoing Talk discussion, I don't think 'forcing' is as unfair as you suggest. I am not opposed to the information being in the article, with an appropriate source. However, when text gets removed from an article for poor sourcing, as happened with this text months ago (and it was a different editor who removed it, not me), it shouldn't be put back in without good sourcing, not just whatever webpage on finds. I would think Debrett's would have this information, and it would be an acceptable WP:RS. Agricolae (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing Talk discussion? Where is that? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where you decided to open it. Here. Agricolae (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

turned out the blogs were on the right track - this was never about 'being on the right track'. Iit was always about not including information on living people without appropriate sourcing. Agricolae (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But they were. And why am I not surprised you found something to "correct"? You know, people are probably actually not reading articles from start to end very often, and pictures and charts tend to draw the reader's attention. So, a reader looking at the chart might react to George being "Hon." and wonder why that is, when his father never inherited the title. Why should he/she have to look for an explanation some place else in the article? What's wrong with having the same remark in the chart too? Why do we have a name parameter in ref tags and in efn if they're not to be used more than once in an article? Oh, never mind.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) No, they were not appropriate, as explained above. You found an acceptable source, so quit being argumentative for its own sake. 2) And why am I not surprised you found something to "correct"? You know better than to be this uncivil. Agricolae (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/149844915349213 the False Archaeology Wall of Shame. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have had it watchlisted for a while to push back against the periodic overreaching conclusions based on DNA tests of medieval rulers, but don't really pay much attention beyond that. I have noticed that 83.227.81.54 has been making one edit after another in a manner that is concerning (it is inherently concerning any time an IP makes a whole bunch of edits claiming that the current article is biased), but I have yet to summon up the interest to take a close look at what they have been doing, nor am I likely to. Agricolae (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame you. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed you've been seeing and dealing with a lot of these disruptive edits on Emirate of Sicily and elsewhere, so for what it's worth I've posted a request to investigate a number of those accounts that look like sockpuppets to me. It's my first time going to that noticeboard though, so if you have any other suggestions/feedback let me know. Otherwise I assume it's a matter of waiting for the outcome. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the research on the history of slavery and recorded it in Wikipedia in the English language Thetranslaterofhistory (talk). 21:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment on your Talk page. Agricolae (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article contains a great effort. As for exaggeration, there is no exaggeration in my article. Rather, I wrote the facts that existed as well in the Abbasid era. Thetranslaterofhistory (talk). 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article contains a great effort. As for exaggeration, there is no exaggeration in my article. Rather, I wrote the facts that existed as well in the Abbasid era. Thetranslaterofhistory (talk). 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you changed the lede to read "The Arabs The Spanish Arabs traced their origins to the two great ethnic groups or tribes of theAdnanite or Arabs of the north and the Qahtani of yemen Yes, southern Arabs". The Yamharat also collects the genealogies of other peoples such as the indigenous families, such as the Banu Qasi of Aragon". Setting aside the grammatical and tone issues, this is completely irrelevant to Spanish slavery. You also removed sections on 'Christian slavery in Spain', 'African slavery in Spain' and 'Moorish Slavery in Spain', all of which are noteworthy aspects of the subject. Also, you said in some of your edit summaries that you based your changes on the Spanish-language Wikipedia article about the same subject - I looked at it, and I would cousider this characterization less than honest, as you have already been warned about. I am not going to make the argument that the existing article is good - it is not, but what you have replaced it with is no improvement. Again, if you want specific changes made along the lines you are pursuing, you had best garner consensus for the changes on the article's Talk page first. Agricolae (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for fixing the Muladi links. Take this as a token of forgiveness. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to help out with the article or not?--Berig (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Perhaps it wasn't clear that I was addressing my comment to Victoria, who had expressed displeasure over your removal of the section. I was intending to explain to them why the text you removed was of enough problem that it merited your action. Agricolae (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-)--Berig (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know the history before you say there's no wrong??

"The Moors used ethnic European slaves: 1/12 of Iberian population were slave Europeans, less than 1% of Iberia were Moors and more than 99% were native Iberians. Periodic Arab and Moorish raiding expeditions were sent from Islamic Iberia to ravage the remaining Christian Iberian kingdoms, bringing back stolen goods and slaves. In a raid against Lisbon in 1189, for example, the Almohad caliph Yaqub al-Mansur held 3,000 women and children as captives, while his governor of Córdoba, in a subsequent attack upon Silves, held 3,000 Christian slaves in 1191. In addition, the Christian Iberians who lived within Arab and Moorish-ruled territories were subject to specific laws and taxes for state protection."

That's very very very wrong!!and there's no source!!i start wrote another one and delete all that's messy stuff Suwanax12 (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "there's no wrong". I simply asked for specifics. If you are going to start a discussion on a Talk page but all you say is 'the article is all wrong and I am going to change it', you will get no useful feedback. To have a productive exchange on an article's Talk page, you must be explicit in terms of the specific problems and how you intend to change the article to address these problems. Agricolae (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What make you delete the word "arab" from everywhere?? I saw you do the same things in most article is there's any problem?for delete what i add? Isamaxzs (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is why you made the change from the better description to one that is in one case inferior, and in the other case misleading, and why you inserted a barely-disguised copyright violation into one of the articles? Anyhow, you made a change, it was reverted, now is the time to make your case on the individual articles' Talk pages. Agricolae (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is why did you delete the word "Arab" from the original article ?? I deleted the word "Arab" from everywhere in the Emirate of Granada !! Without a convincing reason, I brought it back as it was and you want to delete the word Arab again !!why what's bothering you? Isamaxzs (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a less-than-honest characterization. Before the recent parade of sock-/meat-puppet ethnic warriors the 'original article' said nothing of the sort. Changes against consensus that are immediately reverted do not establish a new reference point for what constitutes 'the original article' - you have to go before the round of disruption, like here [1]. Now, if you think this is a change that should be made to the article, then you can go a step further than your predecessors and actually try to make your case on the article's Talk page. Agricolae (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you deleted the word "Arab" yourself from the entire article, why? i rewrote it as it was, what makes you want to delete it? Is the article wrong, for example? Isamaxzs (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you just deleted my article that's true, but before deleting my article, the article was originally written the same as what I wrote, but you deleted it for no apparent reason and you returned it to what it was and you deleted it again !! What is the problem ?? Isamaxzs (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this aspect of your changes because they fly in the face of the established consensus and the prior stable versions of the article. I have told you, repeatedly, where to discuss if you wish to establish a new consensus in favor of the version you prefer. Do what I suggested, don't do what I suggested, but I'm done with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here. Agricolae (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I return it? Why don't I write it again? Isamaxzs (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying this for the last time, and will not respond further here. The process is the same any time you make a change and it is reverted. You go to the Talk page of the article in question and through discussion generate a consensus for the change that you desire to be made. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Agricole. Kindly see the Kutama page too (can't revert now, it's against the 3-revert rules) since it totally deletes the leaders who founded and ruled the caliphate (List of Fatimid caliphs). Thanks for protecting the Encyclopedia.

Anchovy Aquarium (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agricole, I want to remove Daniel Maiorana from the page for the surname because of the same reasons you gave. And I'd like to know how to explain this in the edit summary, does his listing go against any WP notability criteria? Thank you. 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:DF5:D6A7:90C5:F888 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have two options, one is the easy way but more likely to get reverted, the other is the proper way that should have been done years ago.

• the easy way: simply delete it saying simply that he is 'not notable enough to merit listing' and leave it for anyone who thinks otherwise to defend if they revert. The obvious rebuttal, though, is one for which you don't have a defense, 'he has a dedicated redirect, that that makes him notable enough to list'.
• the best way: a three step process - 1) Delete his mention from Fucked for Life. His mention there is unreferenced, and as such is a clear WP:BLP violation, and so it can be deleted without further reason; 2) remove him from the surname page because he is not mentioned on the page the redirect points to; and at the same time, 3) put forward the redirect for deletion, because the only mention on the page it redirected to was an unreferenced passim mention that has been removed as a BLP violation (which will remove the reasoning above that 'if he has a redirect be must be notable enough to list'). Agricolae (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with the proper way is that the majority of the Fucked for Life article here on Wikipedia is about Daniel and his activities, I'm cautious about removing from an already under-written stub. I've also noticed all-except-two references are now dead links. 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:DF5:D6A7:90C5:F888 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad - that article has changed since I last looked at it (a while back). In that case, there is no justification for removing Daniel from the list - he satisfies the criteria for inclusion (basically, have their own page or prominently featured on another page. However, it is bad form to have the listing point to a redirect. I will fix that, at least. Agricolae (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, thank you for all of your help. 90.195.89.74 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Hi Agricolae, regarding the Fucked for Life and Maiorana pages, is Daniel's birthdate sourced? 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:A16E:F119:3365:C358 (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I guess this changed the meaning [2]. OTOH the whole thing is unsourced, and I have not looked into it for a long time. So presumably you know what you are doing. I just note it in case there is a chance you made a mistake. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't know what I am doing - that is just how I read it: that it was saying he was either son of Robert or that he was son of one of Robert's sons, and hence either a son or a paternal grandson of Robert. If you think it meant something different, then that just highlights how badly it was written before, such that two relatively experienced people could read it as meaning different things. What did you read it as saying?

As you indicate, such narratives relating 'some say this and some say that' require specific citations either for the individual opinions or for a summary that includes the various conflicting reconstructions. (And the next statement, that the proposal that he was son of Guerin is unlikely, needs two citations, one for the proposal and one for the opinion that it is unlikely.) As a subsequent edit I was about to tag the individual claims as needing a citation (or "says who?"), but it seemed to violate the policy on over-tagging. The whole article being tagged as unreferenced implied that everything in it needs citation, so tagging claims individually seemed redundant. Agricolae (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Why not ask the creator of the article to provide reliable source(s) or it will be deleted? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because I had it on my watchlist just to make sure nobody tried to reinsert the 'certain descent from Clovis' claim. Since I saw the triggering edit and revert were over a poorly-written sentence, I tried to rephrase it. I could claim that in the true spirit of Wikipedia I did so to improve the article, but in all honesty I did it primarily in the hope that the problematic sentence wouldn't trigger more inconsequential noise on my watchlist. I did not at the time, nor do I now, have any intention of allowing that kind of brief visit to mission creep into an entire discussion, source evaluation, page rewriting and/or potential RfD process with this page. There are too many badly-written/badly referenced early-medieval pages on Wikipedia, and one has to pick one's battles. I care so little about this one that I can't even be bothered to walk across the room to see what Settipani has to say about it. You are, of course, free to pursue it yourself. Agricolae (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: more or less same here. There are very large number of medieval stubs. Many probably will one day be valid articles, many shouldn't exist, some will need to be totally changed. So I watch a small number, and try to be useful when I can, which includes trying to avoid articles getting worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the question of the meaning of the altered sentence. According to the history, that sentence had been there since 2016. The page creator had first reported that Lambert was son of Robert II. He then replaced this text with a statement that Lambert's father was unknown, but that Lambert was grandson of Robert II. A different editor then apparently tried to square the circle by replacing this with the sentence in question, that Lambert was either the son of Robert II or his father was one of Robert's sons. That is not to say that any of this represents scholarly consensus - there is way too much use in these types of pages of what is only the most recently-published speculation as if that was the same thing as scholarly consensus, but I think mine was a fair rephrasing of the intent of the original sentence, while I am open to being convinced otherwise (or having the whole thing removed). Agricolae (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is a new discussion that you may wish to participate in. Blockhouse321 (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Se não e assim então como e que e que eu não vi outro geito, existe outro? Arquijaiv (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The links from one Wikipedia language to another used to be encoded in the text of the page itself but several years ago they created a special linking database to handle these, and removed them all from the text of the page itself. On the left-hand side of the relevant page, below the Wikipedia emblem, there is a section for "languages" that contains the links among the different language versions. This panel has an 'edit' command at the bottom that will take you to the inter-language database page, and this can then be edited, links can be added or changed.

In this case, though, the link has already been programmed into the 'languages' panel, as indicated by the appearance of 'Português' among the listed languages. Clicking that will take you to the page you were indicating. Agricolae (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's always difficult to know what to do with previously recognized taxa that have had widespread use, and I did hesitate before redirecting Oxanthera to Citrus. A remaining problem is that although in 2009, Bayer et al. suggested using Citrus subg. Oxanthera for this group of species, a Google Scholar search for "subgenus Oxanthera" doesn't show any takers, so at best "false oranges" are an informal group, which makes the taxobox a problem, since it shouldn't target Citrus when this isn't the subject of the article. We could set up a taxonomy template at, say, Template:Taxonomy/False oranges with the 'rank' "informal group" and parent Citrus, I guess. Thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because of Swingle creating these groups, and then phylogeny reintegrating them, there are a number of these in Citrus that are hard to deal with. I think it is worth keeping the page because the group of species formerly known as Oxanthera has a history of being discussed and described as a coherent grouping, though it now becomes an informal grouping rather than a formal one. With that decision made, it comes down to making somewhat arbitrary choices to make the best of a bad situation, just as has been done with Australian lime and Papeda (and will probably need to be done with Clymenia in the not too distant future, as the enlarged Citrus genus concept seems to have become consensus). In terms of precedent, Australian limes and Papeda have had the taxobox removed, Kumquat and Trifoliate orange use a species-level taxobox even though hosting discussion of multiple species (for a given and ever-changing value of species within Citrus).

I guess the easiest solution is to just remove the taxobox until/unless either someone publishes a formal Citrus taxonomy using formal subgenera, or detailed genomic analysis of the Sahul Citrus concludes (as has been the general trend in other such studies on Citrus) that all the oxantheras belong to a single synonymous species. Either of these possible outcomes would restore formal validity to a taxobox designation, at which time it could be restored. Agricolae (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably the best solution for now. Citrus taxonomy is an utter mess at present. (Rutaceae more generally is improving; the 2021 paper at doi:10.1002/tax.12543, which has been taken up by sources such as the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website, offers a well supported way forward for genera and subfamilies.) Peter coxhead (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Citrus taxonomy

added a link pointing to Clymenia

Clymenia (plant)

added a link pointing to New Ireland

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Farley (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abd al-Rahman Sanchuelo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calatrava.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	French one
	Thank you! An article Wikipedia needed. Miha (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Baldwin ref seems to be a 1996 forum post in which one "Stewart Baldwin" criticized a genealogical reconstruction of ancient Middle Eastern royalty by Christian Settipani, as involving too much conjecture. The Darius II article you brought to my attention also references this 1998 email, in which Settipani admits (acknowledging Baldwin's criticism) to "Darius II" being no more than a placeholder name for an unidentified person. So, I think it's safe to say the source is unreliable, and that "Darius II" is bogus. I'll nominate that article for deletion too. Avilich (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This all traces to two sources. 1) a highly-speculative self-published work by Settipani on possible Descents from antiquity, and 2) a broad discussion on the Usenet group soc.genealogy.medieval and its then-mirror mailing list GEN-MEDIEVAL. Not only do both the cited Baldwin and Settipani contributions come from there, but also the dead tyndalehouse web page is by a person who participated in those discussions and appears to be relying heavily on Settipani's original work. I would suggest that at the time, neither Baldwin nor Settipani were 'experts in their field' as per the self-publication loophole (both are arguably such now), and anyhow, a Usenet post is more off-the-cuff than some kind of formal statement of expert opinion. I would not consider any of the cited sources to be WP:RS, and as you have indicated, we have the main proponent himself admitting the name is nothing but a genealogical placeholder (not uncommon in Settipani's work, which is full of speculative connections that nonetheless get treated here as if they were red-letter fact rather than just one person's guesswork). As far as I am concerned this renders Darius inherently non-notable, unless there has been a whole lot more formally published discussion of his existence, which there hasn't. The topic area as a whole needs an enema to purge it of a whole lot of this type of .... Any page that relies on the tyndalehouse web site, any page that uses either the Baldwin or Settipani Usenet posts needs a thorough reevaluation. Agricolae (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi again. May I ask how did you come about those articles I nominated earlier? I found them by scrolling through a now-inactive editor's ("Anriz") contributions list, and quite a lot of those have serious WP:N and WP:V issues. Avilich (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, I became aware of the first of them when the AfD (or another related AfD) appeared on the History deletion sorting page. I then searched all of Wikipedia for other pages using the tyndalehouse and Baldwin references. Agricolae (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I believe that you are correct about my edit, this isn't WP: weasel. Also i believe, despite my mistake in Wikipedia terminology, my edit is justified, because in phrase: "and were heavely defeated" the word "heavely" INDEED against wikipedia rules as MOS:WTW. Good luck! 31.40.131.100 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be puffery were this simply the editor's characterization. However, if the cited source in describing the battle indicates that it was a 'heavy defeat', that they were 'defeated soundly', that they were 'crushed' or 'routed' or 'slaughtered', etc., then we also don't want to whitewash the historical reality by intentionally minimizing the outcome, using language so neutral as to conflate everything from an anihilation to a stalemate from which they were the first to withdraw under the same generic description, 'they were defeated'. Agricolae (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC) to do so.[reply]

What’s the phrases you’re searching for to find the genealogy issues? You can email if you want to avoid WP:BEANS. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed per BEANS/OPAQUE. Agricolae (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside/followup - see User:Ealdgyth#OR fest for the cleanup. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes!!! Agricolae (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I feel sometimes like all I do on wiki is cleanup any more.... -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Russian name is undoubtedly more important. It is the closest language to old east slavonic, and the Kievan Rus were effectively Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Սեաւ Պարտէզ (talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that many Ukranians mave a different perspective. Such determinations of 'most important' are inherently subjective, subject to the beliefs and assumptions of individual editors, and there have been previous instances on these pages of Russians and Ukranians having revert wars over the order. Wikipedia has a long history of intentionally avoiding this type of nationalistic conflict by using non-subjective ordering, such as alphabetical order. Agricolae (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I saw your edit to Abraham Pietersen van Deusen go by, and I appreciate it--to find that in the end, all roads lead not to Rome, but to Wyandanch, New York... Once upon a time I and a few others pruned it a bit; I see it's suffering from accretion again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That will happen. Agricolae (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to WP:URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. An article that you nominated for FA status, William the Conqueror, has been marked as "Satisfactory" by two editors, meaning that they believe the article meets the featured article criteria. Can you check the article and determine if it meets the FA criteria? If it does, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020B. If you have concerns about the article, we hope that you will fix it up or post your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please go to the URFA/2020 talk page. Thanks for your help and happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, posted it on the TP of Sigrid the Haughty. Sorry for misspelling your nick there, btw. T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Agricolae (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with article content because of edits by another user, and the issues are not primarily about user behavior, you are to write about such issues on the article's talk page, not on the user's talk page, and you are not to repeatedly reverse the other user's work without discussion there. Such basic policies about conduct on Wikipedia apply to you, me, everyone. You have now done this twice, though you were specifically asked not to use my talk page while continuing to mum your issue on the article's talk page. Edit summaries are not sufficient, and do not replace our obligation to discuss article content on article talk pages. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I specifically asked you to explain your perspective on the article's Talk page. Days later, you have still not done so. As to obligations, when you add something to a page and it gets reverted, the onus is on you, not anyone else, to make the case for its inclusion. Instead, you have inexplicably decided to turn this into a completely pointless power struggle. I have let you know what the concers are, and you know where the Talk page is. I can't make you explain your perspective there, but your abject refusal to do so is not my fault. Agricolae (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again, and the sighing won't help you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Talk message you finally got around to making only after berating me here over your own failure to do so previously. It doesn't change anything. This issue has remained unresolved because you refused until 4 hours ago to engage in discussion at all, except to complain about 'process' rather than addressing the issue. Anyhow, I don't think anything productive is likely to come from continued discussion here. Agricolae (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was ill and away from Wiki work for a few days.

An article's talk page, not just edit summaries (and absolutely not user talk pages), should always be used whenever article content needs discussion. It is up to any user involved to start a section on the article's talk page. Normally, anyone reverting something for the second time would do that. You are no exception. As long as you do not acknowledge this accepted procedure there is still an issue here about your conduct. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me there isn't. Agricolae (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening sir just wanted to make sure you accept my edit after I corrected the citation and that you don’t feel I was edit warring about it.Foorgood (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A better place to talk about this is the article's Talk page. This is now the third User Talk page I have seen discussions of your recent edits to the Henry VII page - why aren't you using Talk:Henry VII of England? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and taking discussions to individual User Talk pages unnecessarily personalizes every content dispute into a one-on-one conversation, when others following the page may also have something to contribute.

As to your specific edit, someone else has already reverted it, agin over a 'process issue' but I also have concerns over the content - an 1855 history source would not be considered reliable by modern standards. If this information really is noteworthy, then oneof the many modern biographies would have mentioned it, and if so, one of them should be cited rather than this old source. Agricolae (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is the new source^[1] but I’m sorry I just can’t figure out how to do the citations is there a tool to get them easily in the format for the page?Foorgood (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two different things need to be done for this style of citations. You need to insert the harvard-style citation into the text, and you also have to add the cited book to the article's Bibliography section or the citation will return an error. (see how I did this with with your Weir source)

As to the new source you have identified, it is still problematic, but we shouldn't be talking about it here, we should be talking about it on Talk:Henry VII of England. Agricolae (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And just to make sure this is clear, while my original edit summary only mentioned citation style so you reinserting it with an attempt to fix the citation style would not constitute edit waring, now I have told you that I have a problem with the content also. That changes the context in which a subsequent reinsertion would be viewed. Just in general, when material gets reverted twice by different editors, it would be a good time to go to the article's Talk page rather than an individual editor's Talk page to ask what you are doing wrong and find out if the reversions aren't about more than just the reason's given in an edit summary. Your next stop should be the Henry VII Talk page, not a new attempt to redo your edit or further discussion about the Henry VII page here. Agricolae (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I posted in the talk page may you respond there?Foorgood (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Agricolae (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the revertion on Harald Bluetooth, as I probably should of placed that info on the Bluetooth page. :) — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 12:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agricola,

to put this very simply, I understand and do agree with your revert, but I think it would be both fun and useful to the common knowledge if we both tried to find fitting sources for what you conceded was true - that George Washington's descent has been linked and theorized to a host of legendary figures (although logically this would also include many millions of "ordinary" people too). I can be a bit lazy with digging, but perhaps you can be more of an inspiration. This field of study anyway is one that is often sadly overlooked, and this page is about THE President that comes to peoples' minds first, so, you know. That wasn't a "very simple" text but please help. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 04:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to propagate every outlandinsh genealogy that has ever appeared, even if only to then refute it. The history of genealogy is rife with such absurdity, too many to refute every example that has appeared, and this situation has only been exacerbated in the internet age. Most scholarly genealogical sources can't be bothered, rather than dedicating their valuable publication space to the refutation of patent nonsense, and as a general rule a good encyclopedia does the same thing - it focusses on what is true, not on presenting and then refuting various dated and non-scholarly alternatives. Agricolae (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply, and certainly you make a good point. I personally believe that there should be some kind of mention – and to be fair there is a lot of WP:RS concerning this and it's not roleplaying speculation – of Crinan of Dunkeld being the "ultimate" empirical forefather (and really it's just taking one more century step back from the earliest said ancestor on there). The grand historiography is necessary for the context of such an article devoted to the Washington dynasty itself (and it is a medieval dynasty with a simple medieval CoA). It's in the same vein as even now the mainstream consensus that USA's existence was not tabula rasa but had even ancient roots and partial inspiration from medieval events and documents which Jefferson in particular and other Founders cited, from the witangemot to the Magna Charta. If even this is a problem, I'm sorry but I'll have to just edit in my best case with a firm source(s).--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a perspective I do not share. Not all information that is true and well sourced is noteworthy, and ancestors of a family so extremely remote that the family themselves were entirely unaware definitely falls in that category. Wikipedia was never intended to be a genealogical resource. Agricolae (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated William the Conqueror to be today's featured article on September 9. Please click here to join the discussion. Z1720 (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

9 September

Thank you today forwhat you did for the article, introduced (in 2012): "I am nominating this for featured article because after extensive work and revamping, I feel this is the best article possible for the subject. Everyone should know about William the Conqueror - his invasion of England in 1066 is one of "those dates" that even Yanks can remember. But there is a lot more to William than his invasion of England, and this article tries to put him in context of his entire life. After numerous copyedits, an extensive peer review process and lots and lots of work (including the most excellent family tree charts by Agricolae, who has no idea I just co-nom'd him for this... surprise!) This is what it looked like when I began work this January. It's doubled in size and the sourcing has been greatly improved as I've done a complete reread of the two main biographies of William to update the sourcing. I've also incorporated a number of other works on the Conquest and the time period, but the major sources remain the scholarly biographies of William. This is a wikicup nomination for me, but it's been a labour of love for myself as well as all my wonderful helpers. I present - William the Bastard who became William the Conqueror, a rather dour but extremely important historical figure."! - On a smaller scale, we have expanded Lars Vogt from a short article focused on conducting tenures. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and salutations. I came to apologize for my edits on przewalski’s horse, and if they seemed to be counterproductive. I was attempting to add a statement meaning to say that the information regarding the horse's status as a domestic/feral animal was disputed. I was somewhat inexperienced at editing articles back then Firekong1 (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Have a wonderful holiday season filled with peace, joy, prosperity and wonder.
	Hi Agricolae, Thank you for all your contributions during the year. I appreciate your help with the Animal Locomotion article. May your 2023 be filled with creativity and good health. Image: Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927 Netherzone (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Agricolae.

I've been looking at the DfA page which you seem to have been quite active on since 2019. This topic is very interesting and it is one that many genealogists seem to be quite personally invested in – probably part of the reason why this article has always been called 'messy'. Even now, after extensive revisions, it still has its maintenance template. That in mind, you seem to be versed in the history of this article and I have some questions:

1. This page clearly has some history (ha ha). From what I see, there was a nuclear war on the page more than a decade ago. It seems to have revolved around this @Chris Bennett guy. What the hell happened on this article?
2. I've also seen extensive mention to this Christian Settipani guy. Whenever I see people discussing DfA online, Settipani's name is always mentioned – however it is noticeably absent from the current article. Did you remove him? If so, why?
3. When will the maintenance template be removed? Or rather, what does the article need for it to finally be good? Do you have any idea how the page can be improved to a state where it is worthy of no maintenance template?

I hope you can clear some of these things up. I also want you to know that I come in peace – I only say this because I have seen in that article's talk page utter chaos in discourse. I want to understand what happened and how it can be improved (although it seems – with your edits (removals) in 2019 – far better than it was before). Snspigs (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article William of Évreux (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]