User talk: Iblardi/Archive 1

I've replied, if you have any more questions or need referentials for certain claims feel free to ask.HP1740-B (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing "actions" in Constantine XI article I am writing my comments on users talk pages.

• Constantine XI is last emperor of Constantinople
• Maybe I am mistaking but there is only 1 historical source that he has been crowned in Mistra and it is ease to put this source under question.
• Byzantine/Roman Empire has not died with Constantine XI. Many users are forgeting that Byzantine Empire has existed next 7 or 8 years (Byzantine province Morea).
• Last direct piece of unbroken line of Roman Empire has died only in 1476 .This fact has been public knowledge for very long time (around 300 years).
• Similar problems are created by historians in last years of Western Roman Empire but we can't do anything.

During his time Napoleon has been speaking that it is not important what he is doing, because history writes will say what they want and this will become history.

I am not weird historian or something similar because if you look history you need to look state laws and documents without POV thinking. Example for Western Roman Empire. Evidence against Romulus Augustus:

• Person will become emperor (of west or east) only if after taking power he is accepted by other emperor (west or east). If he is not accepted he is usurper. Because of that rule Romulus Augustus has been failed usurper during Julius Nepos reign.
• Romulus Augustus has not even been recognized in Dalmatia and northern Gaul which has been last 2 Roman provinces (without Italy).
• After Odoacer has taken power he has accepted fact that Julius Nepos is Western Roman Emperor and has even issued coins in Nepos' name.

Because of this 3 simple reasons Julius Nepos has been last Western Roman Emperor and Romulus Augustus nothing more but last Roman ruler of Italy.

My point is that about end of Roman Empire we can't trust historians :)--Rjecina (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regading your edit of 1453: Please always look into the recent history of the vandalized article. Often there are several vandal edits one after another. Especially in neglected articles. `'Míkka>t 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite often well meaning newcomers do this kind of mistake. I am lazy to check whether the 'pedian is a freshman or not, so I am slapping the reminder at will. `'Míkka>t 01:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am galled. Not only by the comment but by your stubborn persistence that it remain. It is clearly offensive to at least 10 million people and should not be presented as mainstream Netherlandic thought. Wikipedia relies on the printed word and editors that give their opinions. But this is offensive, nothing else. The only possible rationale for inclusion is continued prejudice. You crassly disregard common standards with this unfortunate statement. Its educational value is Nil...Nada...Nothing. You can surround it with subtle verbs like percieved and dipicted but this does not change a thing. I am not pushing my POV---I am merely protecting it. I will continue to correct this type of slander...here and elsewhere. We are creating a new encyclopedia for the Ages. Not the Dark Ages, tho!--Buster7 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions are on my talk page and are intended so as NOT to continue the "joke". Do you suppose I would like to read it four times whenever I look at my talk page????? What you call a perfectly reasonable message is, to me, offensive...(the message is offensive, not you). As it stands now, the article states that the Dutch target their neighbors. Do you really feel it is necessary to list the offenses? I don't.--Buster7 (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know where the message came from. --Buster7 (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I request Civility. I am editing in good faith. It is nice to see that your are so interested in the articles I am visiting. The attention is gratifying. I don't understand how we can be visiting/editing the same articles all the time. It has to be more than just coincidence. The Low Countries I can understand...a common interest. Hans Brinker...maybe a chance meeting. But...TIM MOORE!!!..a deceased Illinois comedian???? Now thats a s-t-r-e-t-c-h!!! I ask for a truce. What is your purpose in stalking me? It doesn't seem to be quality editing. It seems to be something else.--Buster7 (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit war on concerning a page you recently edited (but may not have been involved with the war) is being resolved via a poll. If you have an opinion, please voice it now by voting at Talk:Thylacoleonidae. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to Accolade. Go ahead and put the image back in. Could you look over an article I just wrote on Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri IX. Do you think this is a correct title (don't know Latin), or if better wording and a different title wording would be more appropriate? Perhaps De Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus or maybe Dictorum Factorum Memorabilium libri IX. Please do any tweaking to the article you feel it needs. Thanks. --Doug ^talk 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iblardi, you may remember me from the discussion on the talkpage of Marsupial Lion. I was just wondering what this word means if it is Latin. Cazique (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, too bad. Yeh I did mean Wakaleo and was wondering why you did edit it explaining the meaning which is similarly done with all the other genera and marsupial lion. Yeh, it might be a word in one of the aboriginal languages, it would be good if we knew what it meant though. Oh well, thanks for replying. Cazique (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh man, why can't it mean something else! lol The reason why I wish it did, is because the genus Priscileo which belongs to the same family, is the genus containing the smallest "marsupial lions". Oh well, you can add it if you want. If that is the meaning I'm not really fussed on having something like ("Little Lions") on it's page as the other genera do, as it's kind of misleading. Cazique (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doin' what your doin'? What your doin is un-doin everything I'm doin'. Which isn't a nice thing to do. 'Cause then I have to un-do what you do when what you do has undone what I do. I do what I do...and your right there...behind me...to un-do it. That's not right! Do I undo what you do....NO! Who are you to do what your doin'? We both know it has very little to do with doin' what's right. Please...stop doin what your doin...or someone else may have to do what they do to get you to stop doin' what you do. You've done it before, do-ode (dude). This isn't the first time and I'm not your first stalking victim. Do something else!!! Do a "doobie"!!! In the words of Frank Sinatra, "doobie, doobie, do"--Buster7 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buster7 is right about the river running through the town. Fremont is famous for its sturgeon spawning on the Wolf River.

Are you following him around? Please read WP:WIKISTALK. Be warned that it is considered disruptive if unwarranted, and disruption can lead to blocking if it's harmful to Wikipedia. Royalbroil 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of stalking, just making sure that you understand what wikistalking is. I hope that you two forget about each other and continue editing without meeting again. Royalbroil 01:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider those 2 edits to be done in good faith, but poor quality. The first two sentences in that paragraph on the Wolf River are good quality. What you both should be doing is discussing this on the talk page instead of reverting each other. You can do some negotiating with the content by rewording and deleting whatever isn't concise, but make sure you use a well-worded edit summary. Reverting the entire contribution without an explanation in the edit summary (or a talk page discussion) causes misunderstanding and doesn't help learning. If you two can't come to an agreement on some content, then please bring it up at a relevant WikiProject - WikiProject Wisconsin in this case. Royalbroil 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean to drag you into this silly war, Royal, but as long as your in the room. Your right, it probably was amatueristic to do________-- and continue on. I had to get to work and wanted my brother to log on, take a look, and let me know what he thought. Its a personal editing manuvuer I've used for years. It allows me to move on and then come back and fill in the blank with just the "right' verb, etc. BTW...I've fished the Wolf at Fremont for 40 years. This is just Mr X's sour grapes. Being a "rookie" here, I'm not quiet sure what to do. I have contacted dispute resolution and I am waiting for their reply. Initially, I feared Mr X's retaliation. He seems to be a seasoned veteran editor. I seriously question his motives, however. Our initial conflict didn't seem like much to me. What it revolved around, in between the lines was, "Old World Stuff"...an unfavorable joke toward my ancestry that I would not tolerate, and I told him in many "talks"....anyway...thanks for listening..."see ya on 'da Wolf!":--Buster7 (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets agree we got off on the wrong foot. However it happened, whatever was said..is "water under the bridge." I haven't heard anything from editor assistance and at this juncture I consider it a dead issue. I'll let it (my request) sit there just to see if someone responds and how long it takes (an experiment)...but I wont pursue it. My biggest worry is that, down the line, you will "stalk" someone else. So...if, down the line, you get that strange, mis-trusting urge...let me know. Really!

I dont want to share emails or have a cup of coffee; I just DON'T want to have an enemy out there in WikiLand. I have a feeling we will both be editing here for awhile. Who knows what the future holds? But, from my side of the street, there is NO animosity, NO anger, NO need for revenge.

My intentions are to edit in good faith. I really do appreciate your change of heart/direction/mind. It's not easy. Take Care...Bedankt, eh!--Buster7 (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing...On my talk page , I have changed you user name to MR X...I hope you don't mind!--Buster7 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing up myths regarding Constantinople's "official name". Your help is much appreciated. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mathsci found a published translation and it seemed to suggest the same thing. Also, thanks for the comment on the name of the Latin Empire - I forgot that the HRE was emperor "of the Romans", unlike the Latin Emperors. That was a good point. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I come in Peace...LOL...Read with interest your comments about the Franks. Admittedly, I am not a historian of Belgium. I have only recently, with the passing of my parents, searched for my Past. We lived a Flemish culture, but it was an AMERICAN Flemish culture. I struggle, hard, to read Nederlanse. Anyway, I just thought I would relate that when I run across a Nordic speaker in my travels, it always strikes me how "friendly" the sounds he uses are to my Flemish ear. There must be some archaic language connection.--Buster7 (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Growing up, we would go back to visit every 3 years or so till I was 16. Then, 43 years later, my wife and I spent a week w/ my family during a 3 week Europe trip. Thanks.eh!--Buster7 (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Liberate, as used here, is not neutral point of view.--Buster7 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Het is niet nodig om een collage op te geven alleen vanwege één drammerig persoon. Tenzij je het echt niets meer vind moedig ik je aan om er gewoon weer achter te staan. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twee...--Buster7 (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is dat Vlaams? - PietervHuis (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zelf vind ik de huidige foto nog slechter dan alle vorige foto's die in de leiding hebben gestaan. 3 slecht geklede oudere mensen moeten een voorbeeld zijn voor alle Nederlanders? Dat vind ik eerder beledigend, maar dat verschilt eerder per persoon. Punt is wel, de collage kan nergens anders staan dan in de introductie. Een foto van Nederlanders op fietsen wel. Die kunnen we toch gewoon ergens anders in het artikel zetten? - PietervHuis (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why you removed the cause of death I put in for Desiderius Erasmus (dysentery). Was it because I failed to site a source? Accidit (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between but/and as used at Flemish (linguistics) is subtle. Generally the use of "but" as a connector tends to negate or lesson the importance of what was stated before it. When "and" is used the two statements or ideas are thought to have equal importance. Not a problem here. Both work well, for different reasons. I, myself, would choose "but" to express the growing daily-life return of the dialects...but "and" is OK. However, I would suggest we add..."which is" to clarify that it is current. Ok with that?--Buster7 (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Your input here would be highly appreciated. It is a story that has frustrated me a lot, and third-party opinions are more than needed. Cheers --Yannismarou (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we shake hands...or cross swords? My hope is that we can work together from different sides of the Flemish fence. I would like to think that you understand my position. You may not agree but you understand. Lets begin there. --Buster7 (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting indeed. But what is to be done? --Paularblaster (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to know ask why you have moved Monica of Hippo? In what way is "of Hippo" a mistake? Organic Cabbage (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, she is referred to as Monica of Hippo on some books and websites. I've no idea whether it's correct to call her that though. Organic Cabbage (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the inscriptions tell "Augusto sacr(um) Perusia restituta", wich roughly translated means "Holy (place) to Augustus after the reconstruction of Perusia". I apologize for my accidental revertion of your edit.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either Hutchinson is inconsistent or you have misrepresented him, albeit unintentionally. RashersTierney (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Mea culpa, will need to relocate my copy. RashersTierney (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a major revision of this article - I spell out what and why in the last couple of sections on the talk page. It still needs work - if you are up to it I'd appreciate your reading over the recent talk, and looking at the revision, and seeing what you think. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know it can stand a lot of work. My main concern is that as we add more material the overall structure makes sense and provides a useful context for the different points of view and approaches (I think the previous version became a wreck when people just started adding stuff indiscriminately). So while I hope you can add content, I also hope you will have ideas about the structure. The salient discussion is from here to the bottom of the talk page, I hope you have time to comment, too. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iblardi! You are quite correct, when transliterating Byzantine names, one usually uses B for the beta, but in the case of the city names in the lead section, is the approach not more phonological? Granted, this is not the IPA standard, but it would give a clue to the average English-speaker how the name is actually pronounced (and was pronounced in Byzantine times). Not that I'll make a major issue out of it, but that's justthe reason I changed them. What do you think? Best regards, Constantine ✍ 10:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right as regards modern pronunciation with its lack of the spiritus asper. I used it to reflect Byzantine usage, since it is the transliteration of the polytonic Greek form, and this is certainly the version I prefer. I'll leave it to you whether you want to retain the current form or revert to mine. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the coin maybe dictator (in) perpetuo?, also possible in latin.

Because the truth is that whe have on the contrary the Fasti Capitolini, i.e. the official Acts of Rome:

InscrIt-13-01, 00001ab (fasti capitolini-292v-13n) = CIL 01, p 340 = AE 1927, 00101 = AE 1940, 00059 = AE 1940, 00060 Provinz: Roma Ort: Roma ..../ [C(aius) Iulius C(ai) f(ilius) C(ai) n(epos) Caesar in perpetuum dict(ator)] / [rei gerundae causa]...

More in the Fasti Amiternini: CIL 09, 04191 (p 683) = CIL 01, p 0061 = InscrIt-13-01, 00004 = AE 1991, 00577 = AE 1997, 00473 CIL 09, 04191 (p 683) = CIL 01, p 0061 = InscrIt-13-01, 00004 = AE 1991, 00577 = AE 1997, 00473 Provinz: Samnium / Regio IV Ort: Poggio San Vittorino / Amiternum [C(aius) Iulius Ca]esar dict(ator) [in p]erpetuum / [bellu]m civil(e) Mutine(n)se / cum M(arco) [A]ntonio...

And Livy (I recorded it also): Livy, Perioch. CXVI: Caesar... Et cum plurimi maximique honores a senatu decreti essent (inter quos... dictator in perpetuum esset...

All four texts without abbreviations: Do you think that the money is good enough against all it? Maybe you can leave both alternatives. Best regards, --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry for the delay answering you. Thank you, now I will add there the citations required. Best regards. --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. --KP Botany (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waarom mag dit woord geen cognate van sacan zijn? Jcwf (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Reference desk/Humanities concerning name. I am suspecious there is something wrong with "Cornelia Africana Major." It probably should be something else, however I do not have a clue. I have searched these three words and they do not appear anywhere. If I can get the correct spelling, then I can search again and probably will find something this time. I looked under Google Books and only found "Cornelia Scipionis Africani filia" - Scipio's second daughter. I would think there would be something on Scipio's first daughter, especially since she married Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum and the history behind their infamous son Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio. Thanks for your help on this, so that perhaps I can expand Cornelia Africana Major (with possible name change).--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I stand by my initial explanation: if the person's views are not significant enough for the article on Jesus or Julius, then he is not notable enough for an article here. You8 say we have articles on other fringe figures. I think we may need ti distinguish here between fringe figures who are taken seriously enough to provoke a wide response among scholars or who are important for political reasons, and ones who are not. Carotti seems to me to fall into the latter category and if there are other articles on other people here who are just as fringe, I would be for deleting them too! That said: if people really can turn the article into a policy compliant meaningful article (which it is not, yet) - one that provides adequate biography, a context for his life and work, and theories, well, I would accept that, I really would. BUT: I frankly doubt that there are enough sources available that meet our verifiability standards that would enable us to write a good article - such sources in my view should be third-party, not just press releases or promotional matrerial written by this guy or his publisher (and yes, this is a standard I would hold to other articles on the simple grounds of "encyclopedic standards). Also, I think the article will be a constant magnet for people who support his crackpot theories; they will continue to add inappropriate sources that are hard to verify. These kinds of articles get deleted for good reasons, they create more problems for the encyclopedia than any of the very tiny value they could possibly add. But look, I know you are a good faith editor, if you want to try to bring it up to snuff, go ahead! I will sit back and watch and root for you, even though I think you will probably fail. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would take a look at something that has been in front of your nose all this time you'd notice something - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Justinian.jpg. "What is better colouring supposed to mean" - it does not take much to see that the picture's colours are too bright in contrast to the mosaic and the other picture of it - which had been used in the page for ages in any case. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was happy with your encouragement on Talk:Dutch Revolt to attempt my proposed Eighty Years' War article. I have now finished that, and besides profiting from your comments on that effort, I would still be interested in overhauling the Dutch Revolt article. But I need some support there, as the current article is the child of many fathers (and some mothers, too, I suspect). As I indicated on that talk page, I am thinking of just covering the "Nederlandse Opstand" period (as in Dutch historiography) and concentrating on the political, diplomatic, social and economic aspects of the subject, dealing with the military aspects by inserting my Eighty Years' War as read. What do you think? (I think a reaction on the Talk:Dutch Revolt-page would be most appropriate)--Ereunetes (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop almost blanking this page, such actions may end up getting you blocked, as you should know. That isn't the way to handle disputes. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for comment and information at Pompey talk. I know the phrase is well cited, but couldn't find it as quoted - my Latin is pretty well non-existent. So again, thank you for providing the passage. Haploidavey (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a PS to the above. I don't really know what I was up to when I took out the phrase and citation. It was a very unconstructive edit. Haploidavey (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

78. has just reverted three timws. I have warned him that he reverts one more time he will be blocked.

You have reverted only twice and it would be premature to warn you but if this revert war continues you ought to take it to the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a bit something for you on the Justinian I discussion page. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to thank you for your post in that discussion, I believe a featured article should not avoid the information about the popular use of "Romania". Regarding, "Empire of Romania" (or "imperium Romaniae"), indeed it was not used by the later Roman Empire (its people calling it simply "Romania"), being used by the Latin Empire, but I think there are some cases where it was used by its western contemporaries to refer to the empire before 1204 and after 1261, for example this Chronicle of the Fourth Crusade uses "empire of Roumania" to refer to it both before 1204 and after the conquest of Constantinople. In the following text after 1261, it is claimed that the "Empire of Romania" "is held by Palaeologus". In the 14th century, Stehpen Dushan, in a letter to Doge of Venice, also uses the expression "Empire of Romania", although I could be wrong, to me it seems that west Europeans used "Empire of Romania" to distinguish it from the "Holy Roman Empire". Cody7777777 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, your revert of 78.0.247.71's edits on Justinian was expectable and not unreasonable. (Personally, I happen to think it's much more sensible to consider Justinian to be Roman, as 78.0.247.71 evidently does, because Justinian's actions and accomplishments make much more sense from that perspective.)

However, giving "Vandalism" as a reason for the reversion seems highly inappropriate. There is no evidence that 78.0.247.71 is a vandal: His/her edits are thoughtful, coherent, and reasoned.

I debated re-reverting on that basis but decided that this would be more likely to lead to an edit war than a consensus. (And, even with the non-Roman wording, it's a very good article, IMO, so I have no wish to go down that path.) Jmacwiki (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iblardi re your recent edit. The problem is where to draw the line as upto a few weeks ago we had several non english names in the introduction and growing. The result was an introduction that had very little english indeed, in fact very little in the latin script at all, much to the detriment of the article as a whole. So please reconsider your actions as, where you have led, several other editors will see no reason not to follow. - Galloglass 17:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem being, which I'm afraid you are not addressing is that last time we ended up with this [1] which were all equally valid from the perspective of the speakers of those languages but very little use to english speakers, and this is en.wiki - Galloglass 18:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the marriage/war question. However, I think your blanket reversion seriously misrepresents Toynbee's alleged views on a "terminal decline" of the West and his supposed claim to have discovered "laws". You also reverted all the attempts to put the article into clearer and more correct English. If you're interested in a better, more accurate article, please restore these revisions. Rhyme3 (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hodie paginam creavit (Massluisia), rebus paginae Anglicis Maassluisiae, et in quibus erat documentum "Ogg". Paginam creavit, quamquam documentum Ogg non in modo quo in pagina Anglice Massluisiae se monstravit. Cogitata iam existimo Vicipaediam Latinam non curat documenta "Ogg". Ecquisne documenta "Ogg" curare poterant?

Today I created this article, with content from the English page for Maassluis, and in it was an "Ogg" file. I created the article, but the Ogg file did not show up as it had in the English article for Maassluis. With these things in mind, I now suppose that the Latin Wikipedia has no support for "Ogg" files. Can anyone create support for "Ogg" files?--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210Please respond on my talkpage, i will respond on your talkpage.    18:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also posted this on your Latin Wikipedia userpage.

There is a discussion starting up at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation), that may be of interest to you. The subject is technically a page move discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is to decide where Batavia should redirect. Until earlier today, Batavia redirected to History of Jakarta, but during this discussion, it is redirecting to Batavia (disambiguation). Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks for your help. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this because you are one of the principal editors of one of the articles that is linked to Batavia (disambiguation). This notice is being posted to all of the top three editors of each of these articles (in terms of total edits), with the following exceptions:

This is an attempt to be a neutrally-phrased posting in keeping with the principles of WP:CANVASS. If you find anything in the wording or the manner posted to be a violation of that guideline, please notify me at my talk page.

Thank you for informing me about the problem with Ῥ on "Google Books", it's good to know that, and I'm sorry for not being more careful. However, currently a strict search about "Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων" appears to return 738 results, while "Βασιλεία των Ρωμαίων" has around 182, and "Ρωμανία" seems to return 2200 results (I hope I have not done other mistakes in the search). But nonetheless, your compromise version of showing both names is acceptable for me (and anyway since the Latin version "Imperium Romanum" was mentioned, it is useful to show the Greek version too). Cody7777777 (talk)

Since you have edited the article or its talk page, I'd like to let you know that the article English conjugation tables has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English conjugation tables. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :-) We can't just allow this argument to go own forever and go in cirles. I opened a new discussion regarding who to put instead of Einstein: [2] Please feel free to offer any ideas! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Here’s what I wrote: [3].

Is there anything you would like to add? I tried to summarize it as much as possible, hope I didn’t skip anything worth mentioning! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Iblardi, I did not intend to restore any information that was incorrect or contradictory with my revert. My apologizes, if I have done so. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before editing this article further, please could you read my notes on the talk page. Thankyou. Op47 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William the Silent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page States General. 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) 09:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iblardi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iblardi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iblardi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]