User talk:Urselius/Archive 2

King of Mumhain

Talk:Ivar of Limerick#King of Munster. Your participation is welcome. Also I give a little review of a new book! It features Ottars, who have now become Danes (Dark Foreigners) and the Ivars Norwegians or Fair Foreigners in Valante's vision. DinDraithou (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jarls

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

Happy 2011! Did you see in User talk:DinDraithou#Cotters again that I found the title of a paper by O Corrain to look for? That paper by Young I might request at the Resource exchange,[1] unless you happen to have access. I believe the Cotters are mentioned. Also did you get the package of papers from JSTOR I forwarded to you a little while ago? I thought I had sent them to you when I got them in November but couldn't locate a record of it. One might be useful for Cork. DinDraithou (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Liam Rua Mac Coitir

Just wrote up a brief peice on the above. Fergananim (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, there does not seem to be much out there. Check out Ireland And The Jacobite Cause, 1685-1766: A Fatal Attachment, by Éamonn Ó Ciardha. Also, see if you can find any references to them in the new Dictionary of Irish Biography .. to the year 2002. Fergananim (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Haro typo for Haco?

Hello. The Cotter family is on my watchlist. I just noticed this bit you were editing: "The Manx MacCotters are said to descend from a brother of Óttar of Dublin named Acon or Haro (presumably the Norse name Hakon or similar was intended), who was born on the island." Any chance that Haro is just a typo for Haco? Haro doesn't make much sense, and I've seen Haco used for Hakon in a lot of older and out-of-copyright books on the net.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It is very probable but we can only present the versions of names that have come down to us, the versions were in the text published in the 1930s. We can't second guess what name or names in the original manuscript looked like. I imagine that the vicar who transcribed the manuscript had some difficulty making the lettering out and just recorded all the possible permutations, though his Latin was probably good no doubt he had little knowledge of Norse names or the Gaelic versions of them.Urselius (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I understand. We've got to follow our sources.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Carlos-shield.svg

Thanks. I'm actually not 100% sure that I got some of the small detail coloring right, but it should be good enough for most purposes... AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Penda of Mercia

Hi Urselius. Noticed you commented (back in April) on the above talk page re there being some unexpected omissions from the article. I have just read the article for the first time and - although not very knowledgable on the subject - also noticed those and several problems with it. One thing is clear to me is that it is no longer good enough to be in WP:Featured articles: appearing as an Article of the Day six years ago shows how long ago that staus was granted. I'm thinking it needs a) the FA reviewed for removal at WP:FAR and b) an expert to help fix it. What do you say? All the best, Plutonium27 (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night

You may have better luck including your additions at the article on Gunpowder Plot in popular culture, instead. There are "problems" with the article on Guy Fawkes Night, as the archives of the talk page amply demonstrate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Urselius (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you picked up on this discussion, by the way? As I'm sure you know, your concerns about the article are shared by several other editors, but unfortunately not by the people responsible for determining what should become a FA - and, also unfortunately, no-one is prepared to address the other obvious issues that have arisen. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, I think FA status could be legitimately challenged on the article's essay-style layout if nothing else. A folk-celebration article which hardly mentions any traditions, recent or current practices is a joke.Urselius (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it may also be that the FA criteria themselves need to be reconsidered, in cases where the totality of the article subject matter is not fully covered by academic or other highest-quality sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Military History

Hello, Urselius, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, perhaps sometime, but not at present.Urselius (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Most editors are welcoming and civil

Urselius you have my sympathy for the verbal abuse you have received from some other editors recently, no one working on this project should have to put up with such incivility.

I do not watch other user's pages but you can always contact me on my talk page or by email as I notice that we have similar interests in some subjects ... (such as the Battle of Waterloo, and the Battle of Worcester etc.) anyway I have said enough and am rambling. So I'll ramble along now. -- PBS (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For work on Basil I. It's a fairly obscure subject and and as such is subject to POV-pushing by small numbers of editors, which you have eruditely addressed. Thank you! Herostratus (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't see this as messing up your clean no-barnstar record! Herostratus (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It does compromise my 'humbug' section to a degree.Urselius (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

	Quality Management Inspection Medal
	I, [Inspector] No. 108, am honored to award you this medal for your positive and assiduous contributions to the quality management inspection process. I appreciate your assistance in improving the "Stable Version" of the Basil I entry. Always know that you have this humble inspector's gratitude and respect. Thank you. No. 108 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Army of Macedon, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Battle of Chaeronea, Paeonia and Porus (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) 19:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.36 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Komnenoi

Hello Urselius! Kudos on improving the Komnenian battles and the article on John II. One plea, though: if you can, replace Norwich throughout. He's popular, but we shouldn't rely on him. And if you want any specific sources on the period, ask and I'll see what I can find. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I see your point re Norwich, it's just that he has many errors and oversimplifications, and I've come to dread an article wher ehe is (over-)used. Anyhow, it might be worth your wile to check out Angold's Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni. Also Lilie, who is an excellent scholar, has written a very nice work, Byzantium and the Crusader States 1096-1204. If you send me an email address, I can probably send them to you. I'll try to check Varzos, although time is a bit short on my side, at least till the end of June. Good luck! Constantine ✍ 16:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of WikiProject Greece
		I am happy to award you with this token of appreciation for your consistently excellent work on much-neglected Komnenian period-related articles, and especially on Komnenian Byzantine army and John II Komnenos. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Komnenos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philippopolis (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) 15:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Death daggers"

Howdy Urselius, I thought you may be interested in the discussion going on at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. The discussion pertains to the typographical dagger ("death dagger") being used for Varus. I'm hoping a consensus can be reached and I thought your opinion would be valuable! Thanks!--Tataryn77 (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. When you recently edited Wallace (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brythonic (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) 12:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine-Bulgarian wars

Hi Urselius, and thanks for adding references to the section on Simeon I, in Byzantine–Bulgarian Wars, and making some points more precise.

The following reference also supports your change regarding Tomoslav's win: "inflicted a heavy defeat". But it also suggests that Bulgaria and Croatia may have been at peace by 927, by papal intervention. This suggests that things were not so dire for Simeon by then, and it seems me that the statements of heart attack caused by military defeat is at best uncertain, and perhaps also un encyclopedic. Perhaps it would safest to just state that Simeon died?

[2]

Mozzy66 (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mozzy66, The Runciman book does use the construct of Simeon's defeat affecting his health. However, I agree that this is entirely supposition on the author's part. I have therefore modified the wording to merely reflect that Simeon died with his ambitions thwarted. Urselius (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talwar

I know how trying articles that attract stupid edits by IP addresses can be particularly if it appears that you are the only editor with the page on your watch list, but two reverts in a month in my opinion does not warrant protecting the page. Let me know if it start to get out of hand with IP address reverting your reverts, or editing in similar material despite request on the talk page that they discuss such changes and I take another look. -- PBS (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

We see that you need a little more understanding of Counter-Vandalism before you're granted Rollback. The Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy exists to help users, like yourself, understand the way to identify and handle vandalism through one-on-one instruction. Perhaps you'd like to ask a question of our instructors, or enroll in the Academy. Happy editing! Dan653 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Werneth, Greater Manchester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celtic (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) 09:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Michael III

Hello, Urselius. You have new messages at Dan653's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"In this sign ..." has no real meaning in English

I will grant you that English is here imitating Latin. Like in, oh, about 50% of the English language as written for the past 500 years or so. As AnonMoos has already tried to impress on you, your comments on "real English" are misguided. Usage defines correctness. In the case of a written language, literary usage. If you want a guide to "real English" I suppose you will just have to write Shakespearean English, and I assure you that Shakespeare would have had no qualms about "in this sign". You cannot use your own judgement as a native speaker for this, as at best you are just one of half a billion native speakers. You may make a judgement on spoken usage in whatever region you are familiar with, but if you want to make a judgement about written language, you will just have to familiarize yourself with literary usage.

Now, you have changed the text to read

The Latin translation of the Greek is in hoc signo vinces— literally "In this sign, you will conquer." It has been more freely translated into English as "By this conquer".

No, "by this conquer" is not a "free" translation of the Latin. It is a literal translation of the Greek. It is the Latin that is a free translation of the Greek, but since the Latin has come down to us as traditional, the most common English rendition actually translates the Latin, not the Greek. Your "free translation" is just the attempt to go back to the original Greek, as it were. --dab (𒁳) 08:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire Map

Hey Urselius! Just letting you know that the annual "Change the 565 to 1025 or a GIF" faction is back. The discussion is at the Byzantine Empire talk, like usual. This topic has been discussed many times, but I think (in this case) a few users are playing on the inexperience of newer users to rapidly build consensus without a wider discussion. Not to mention this topic has been discussed numerous times already anyways. Just giving you a heads up!--Tataryn77 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

McGough

Thanks for all your work on the article. Span (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Close helm / Close helmet

How about a rename of both to cross them over, then re-working each one as necessary? It seems that the existing articles (and their edit histories) are closer to reality that way round. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Something should be done - I just write stuff, I'm not versed in merging or migrating articles. Urselius (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Arsuf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (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) 11:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination for Capture of USS Chesapeake

Greetings, Urselius! I just wanted to let you know that I will be reviewing your GA nomination for Capture of USS Chesapeake. I'll leave a link to the review page here, for reference. Good luck! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Capture of USS Chesapeake to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Khazar2 (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Just happened to come across more about this in reading about John Quincy Adams today. I added a few sentences on the impact of the incident on US popular opinion. Unger seemed to consider it a turning point in the war for the US; did any of your sources mention anything about this that we could add? Just curious. Thanks again for submitting this one; it was fun to hit that point in my book and realize, hey, I know everything about this... -- Khazar2 (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Back at you!

	Panhypersebastos award
	For excellent and valuable contributions to Komnenian-period articles (not to mention solid work on Greco-Roman and weaponry topics as well), as well as for the invention of the "Panhypersebastos award". If it were not for your work, Komnenian military history would be a rather suffering area in Wikipedia!

If I am the first, you definitely deserve to be the next! Funny thing, I always intended to use this image for a Byzantine barnstar, but I never could settle on a name. Going for an actual title somehow never occurred to me...Constantine ✍ 21:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar + Lampião

Thank you for the barnstar! I also reviewed Lampião and made some very small corrections. Great work! José Luiz ^talk 23:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

John Le Marchant

About four years ago you added a couple of sentences to the lead of the John Le Marchant (British Army cavalry officer) article. Since then it has bee retrofitted with a source (the DNB article on this man). Please see Talk:John Le Marchant (British Army cavalry officer)#One of the finest British cavalry generals of his generation. I think that if the sentence is to stay that the sentences need a source that directly supports them, because from reading the DNB I concluded: he did little in the way of generalship, his sword was only prototyped and most of his works were not published, so the DNB in my opinion does not support the description given in the lead. I think that you will need to add intext attribution to an expert for the sentence to remain in place. But I only looked at the page because I am running a AWB script that pulled up Le Marchant baronets I do not intend to edit the John Le Marchant article any more and will leave it to your discretion on whether the article is to be altered. -- PBS (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Close helmet and armet images

Urselius, I sincerely appreciate your work on the helmet articles, and all in all these two are not bad articles. The images just need a little tweaking. The most representational image in an article belongs at the top as the lead image, not at the bottom of the page with a sketch as the lead image. It's nothing to do with "pretty", it's how visually representative the image is of the article's topic. Also, I strongly disagree that the armet article should include an image of a close helmet and vice-versa. If a reader wants to see pictures of the other helmet and read all about it, they can do so at that article. For a lot of our readers it's actually less confusing that way. If you want to describe key differences between the two in the article text (as it currently does) I won't interfere with that at all. But I urge you to take a few minutes to look over WP:IDD, MOS:IMAGES and WP:LEADIMAGE and then revisit these articles later. I'm leaving them alone for now. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 08:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really go in for the interactive side of Wikipedia, I'm essentially only interested in making those articles which interest me, and that I have a useful background knowledge of, better.

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. If I were reading an article which highlights the difference between two things that are often confused, I would like to see a picture of both things as well as a written description - so that I could better understand the distinction. Flicking between articles via links is not really an equivalent aid to comprehension. An uninformed reader might be puzzled by what a "hinged cheekpiece" or a "pivoting bevor" was, if he or she has pictures illustrating both articles immediately available, then I would submit that understanding is aided rather than hindered.

A lot of the 'header stuff' so beloved of Wikipedia (boxes of various types and lead pictures) create a very real problem in shorter articles. They take up space and thereby disarrange the text from any illustrations that are directly relevant to it. As a reader I would rather see illustrations next to the relevant text describing them, than any number of boxes.

If I had to choose between a 'representative' and an 'informative' picture, given constraints of space, I would choose the latter. The line drawing is more informative than the photo of the French helmet as it gives some indication of how the elements of the helmet pivot. Urselius (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

But for the lead image, the picture most representative of what the topic of the article looks like is almost always preferred over a diagram sketch of how it works (carving out an exception for some mechanical and physics-related articles, of which this is not one). Specifically, WP:LEADIMAGE's guidance on lead image selection states:

"Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see."

I also disagree that this image gives the reader any information that this one does not, but I submit that the latter (being a photo rather than a sketch) is a more natural representation of a close helm than the former.

As to the armet sketch, I think if you wanted to include an image with a side-by-side comparison of the two helmets, illustrating their functional differences, that could be useful to both articles. We can recruit some help for that at the graphics lab if you like. I hope we can come to some agreement for the betterment of both articles. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to make the following suggestions for the Armet article. This image at WM Commons may be the best picture we have to illustrate how the armet opens, better even than the current lead image in the article. Also, this image, which gives some visual indication as to function, may be more useful than this one currently in the article. Of course, I would also suggest switching their positions in the article, leading with a representative photo and following up with the sketch of how it opens. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not have access to ideal images, I am restricted to finding the best available on Wikimedia Commons. Often the images there are less than perfect. Please have a look at Komnenian Byzantine army, this longer article is 90%+ my work, and gives the scope needed to get illustrations into position next to the relevant text. I wish that I could extend the helmet articles to such a length that all useful illustrations can be shown next to the text describing them. Unfortunately, I don't have the sources to extend the articles much further - I try to back up all assertions I make with relevant citations. So we are stuck with a limited space in which to insert illustrations, which is the basic difficulty.

Some more detailed observations:

The drawing of the close helmet is just that, a line drawing of an object, not a diagram. I have seen many high quality reference works which are limited to B&W drawings. It shows how the upper visor pivots separately from the lower visor - a drawing or photo showing the bevor pivoting away from the rear of the skull would be even better, but doesn't exist on wikimedia. There is no photo available showing how any part of a close helmet pivots.

Of the two drawings of armets opening, one has a number of advantages for the armet page itself, as it shows an early, or classic, armet with a number of features described in the text - to whit: a visor with hinges, a wrapper, a rondel, and a mail curtain (aventail). The other has fewer advantages for that page but would be fine for the close helmet page as it does show the opening mechanism. The drawn illustration of a closed armet isn't ideal as it does not show the opening mechanism, however, it is the only illustration of the alternative "German design" in existence on wikimedia. Even though the helmet is shown closed the hinges are visible to allow the cheekpieces to open horizontally. It is therefore useful for the armet page where this design variant is described.

If illustrations showing the mechanics of how the armet and close helmet opened and closed could be created that would be ideal. Urselius (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

By "diagram" I meant sketch (I thought I had corrected that), but yes, it is more accurately a line drawing. Anyway, I put in a request at WP:GL/I#Open visored close helm and armet for functional comparison. We'll see what they come up with over there, but it will probably take them a while. Meanwhile, I'd like to take a look through my resources and see if I can add to the article text a bit. By the way, I did not fully read through Komnenian Byzantine army but I looked it over, and I have to say your image selection and layout there looks spot on, and it looks like a well written, well referenced article. Good work! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have a problem with the images or the existence of a lead image, I found the image of the French close helmet in the first place, it is just the lack of space do to the shortness of the articles that causes a problem. Putting a large lead image in, pushes all other illustrations to the bottom of the article where they are not close to the text that refers to them. Urselius (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)