The best Wikipedia's article l have read mangas

Hello, Dr. Grampinator, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to upload a picture to an article and I get this message:

{{autotranslate|base=Abusefilter-warning-baduploads}}

I'm not sure what to do. Thanks.

Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a new page and need to edit the title---forgot to capitalize one of the words. How do I do that?

Please help me with...

Dr. Grampinator (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have checked both of the pages I can see you have created and cannot see that either article has any incorrect capitalisation in it. Can you confirm where the error lies. Amortias (T)(C) 21:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant the Capitulary of Servais which had a lower-case "S". I fixed that. See Help:Moving a page on how to rename pages. Huon (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with...

I just created a page Albert I, Count of Chiny that should have been titled Arnold I, Count of Chiny. Too much caffeine I guess.

Dr. Grampinator (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this page? H.dryad (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Louis IV of Chiny, Dr. Grampinator!

Wikipedia editor Thursby16 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Need to add some sources and add it in some categories or some admins may delete the page all together

To reply, leave a comment on Thursby16's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi, I'm Thursby16. Dr. Grampinator, thanks for creating Louis IV of Chiny!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Could to fix your page up a little by including these.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Thursby16 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with…

I just finished creating an article "Counts of Chiny" and have added the biographical information. There are a number of things that should be updated to more accurately reflect this information, including:

Under the page “Battle of Worringen” the list of commanders (sidebar on the right) shows Arnold V, which directs to “County of Loon”. It should direct to “Arnold V, Count of Looz”.

Under the page, “Eberhard II, Count of the Mark”, his second wife Mary is listed as a daughter of Arnold V of Loon. This should direct to “Arnold V, Count of Looz”.

Alfred I, Count of Chiny directs to “Arnold I, Count of Chiny”, but it should go to “Alfred, Count of Chiny”.

“Louis IV of Chiny” should be changed to “Louis IV, Count of Chiny”. Also, there were some comments from a reviewer and I made the corrections, but the comments are still there.

I don't know how to make these changes on my own, but I guess that's why you guys are here!

Thanks

Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with most of those issues. Help:Link explains the links; Help:Moving a page explains how to change the title of an article. Regarding the remaining maintenance tag at Louis IV, Count of Chiny, Thursby16 may want to check whether in their opinion it's still needed. Huon (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Hilduin II, Count of Arcis-sur-Aube requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with…

The only option I seem to have is "Edit Source". I used to be able to just "Edit" but over the last couple of days, that button does not appear. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been changes in how the editing options are presented. Click "Preferences" at the top of the screen, and on the "Editing" tab, towards the bottom, you wil see a drop-down menu labelled "Editing mode". That lets you choose whether you are shown by default always the "Edit source" tab for the Wikitext editor, always the "Edit" tab for the Visual editor, the tab for the last editor you used, or both "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs. JohnCD (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed explanation here. JohnCD (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Probably a few things to talk about as we seem to share an interest, but here is one recent edit I would like to ask about. Does this not put too much emphasis on one single person in those two families, and one single theory about how they connect to Loon?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message! I would not call myself "the author" (dangerous concept on Wikipedia!) but I have sometimes worked on this. Not really happy with the article because it could be better, and I always tend to work on little bits of it. Anyway, you intentions sound perfect, but not really sure why an example of those two families is needed in that place. (Why not pick another one for example?) It is a bit of a side issue for that particular article? Maybe the sentence could be removed, but on the other hand what Wikipedia maybe needs is two good articles about those families. Then we could link to those so that the readers could follow it up?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. Grampinator,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged William Robidoux for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Gab4gab (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Dr. Grampinator, You left me a long note on my user page instead of my talk page. I have read it. I'll be deleting it to clean up my user page. Feel free to drop it on my talk page it you'd like. I certainly understand that all of the 'rules' can be confusing. It takes time to absorb the basics and then more time to appreciate how various policies and guidelines relate. A good place to start regarding content policy is Policies and guidelines. I think you'll find it less frustrating to get a better understanding of the content policies. You also might find it helpful to visit The Teahouse which SwisterTwister mentioned back on 19 March. Gab4gab (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this. Responding to your talk page contest: If individuals have no claim of importance apart from being part of a famous family then their articles get deleted. Perhaps you could write an article on the whole family instead. However Wikipedia is not a place to have a giant family tree with no descriptive text to show any importance. Other alternatives maybe to have a diagram that illustrates the descendents on commons. Let me know if you need a copy of the text I deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to edit the article "House of Chateaudun" by adding links to the biographies of the people shown in the family tree. How do I do that? Thanks.

Please help me with...

Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. To add a link, you just need to click on the link button at the top of the editor (it looks like a chain) after selecting the text you wish to link. You can find more information about how to create hyperlinks in the tutorial here. Hope that helps. If you need any further help, please do let me know. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 17:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Manuel Robidoux 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/Manuel Robidoux until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Fram (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. Grampinator, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Counts of Hesbaye has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I notice you do not add much sourcing information, apart from MEDLANDS. (Especially on some of the many small new articles you are making, there seems to be almost no sourcing.) You might not realize that on Wikipedia there have been a lot of complaints about editors over-using this. For example you can search the noticeboard at WP:RSN. I do look at it myself and have corresponded with Charles Cawley sometimes myself. What you need to keep in mind is that this is mainly a one-man project, and constantly being changed. In some of the difficult pedigrees he is virtually just playing with ideas, trying to fit together things. So, a good idea is to look at the sources he cites, and try to check and cite those also. Ideally though, you should also try to look around the internet for any other sources that might have worked on the same families. This can be important because I think one of Charles' aims is actually to start from primary sources, and not be too influenced by well-known secondary sources. And that aim does not make his project ideal as a WP source, where we actually make it our aim just to summarize whatever the most well-known secondary sources say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with...

I have done an article Raganar_(Frankish_count) where I messed up on the references and don't know how to fix it. I'm sure its an easy fix for a Wikipedia Maestro, but that leaves me out.

Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't included the title of the work in the citation. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rotideypoc41352 fixed the issue. Using "Ibid." is not a good idea on Wikipedia because someone else might add additional content with additional references between the original reference and the "Ibid.", thereby unwittingly changing what it refers to. Huon (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert I, Bishop of Tours, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fontenelle. 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) 09:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Monastery of Belcinac

added a link pointing to Saint Valérie

Royal Administration of Merovingian and Carolingian Dynasties

added a link pointing to St. Denis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the two links.

You've created several new articles that used French Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is not reliable and cannot be used as a reference. You also used interwiki links slightly wrong. I answered a question about this on my talk page today, so it's on my four brain cells (that's all the brain I have left). See User talk:Bgwhite#Translations vs. foreign language articles. Bgwhite (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm NearEMPTiness. Dr. Grampinator, thanks for creating Gozelo I, Count of Montaigu!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please review the categories that have been added so far.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've noticed you've been working on biographies that would qualify for the semi-active WikiProject Middle Ages. To learn more about this WikiProject and the appropriate tags for the talk pages, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle_Ages.

Happy editing! TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Sadads. Dr. Grampinator, thanks for creating Amaury, Count of Valenciennes!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Without footnotes, if someone chooses to expand the article, it is almost impossible to track and maintain the content. I highly recommend adding Help:Footnotes to help preserve the quality of the content.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sadads (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Larson Brothers Guitars page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Éverard III of Puiset, Viscount of Chartres requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Dr. Grampinator, thank you for all your contributions on Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Hugh I, Count of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 01:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, German crusade army led by Emicho. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Rhineland massacres. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Rhineland massacres – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Domdeparis (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Neumoustier Abbey, Dr. Grampinator!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for taking the time to create this article - it's appreciated. Could you please look it over and see if you can address the issues raised in the improvement tags? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks for creating Sacred Relic of St. George, Dr. Grampinator!

Wikipedia editor TonyBallioni just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for this contribution to the encyclopedia! It meets the minimum size and age requirements, so you might be interested in taking it over to WP:DYK.

To reply, leave a comment on TonyBallioni's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

TonyBallioni (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Hugh of Eu, Dr. Grampinator!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add relevant wikiprojects to the talk pages of articles you create.

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, The First Crusades. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – First Crusade. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at First Crusade. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. WikiVirusC (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiVirusC (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Monastery of Belcinac has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. Endercase (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Grampinator,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating Abu’lgharib Artsuni! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you:-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for 3 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bagrat Pakrad, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more footnotes. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Masum Reza^📞 13:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. G., you've done a tremendous job in adding articles about medieval topics on English Wikipedia, but please, do some research before just using the French names and terms! "Big" languages like French, German, English used to have this habit of translating names, nowadays it isn't politically correct anymore; in any case, Charlemagne is Karl der Große to the Germans and might be Charles the Great to the English-speakers, and so on. For instance, Cave de Suète is known in English literature by its medieval French name, Cave de Sueth, a whole bunch of Thierrys are known as Theoderic or Dietrich, and so forth. Google might be all you need to figure out the correct English name. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Arminden (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a polite thank you for your comments on the ACR of this one. Tbh I took a moribund article, updated it and wondered how far it would go in that state. The answer is clearly to GAR but not much further without serious work. I don't have the time, energy or inclination to give due attention to your valid comments (sorry fot that) so will be stepping back from this article. Someone, sometime maybe will pick this up again. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Guy II, Count of Soissons has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This man is not notable enough to warrant a separate article, as his biography can be summed up in a sentence in his father's biographical article. He either died just before or just after his father and the title passed to the sister of the subject of this biography. I suggest this page becomes a redirect to the father's biography Renaud I, Count of Soissons

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.

-- PBS (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the parameters as specified in WP:CS1 (or Template:Cite_web/doc. For example you recently made this edit Revision as of 17:02, 16 July 2020 I have altered it Revision as of 17:09, 16 July 2020, to separate out the values into separate parameters.

If editors use the parameters as specified then the parameters will produce a consistent display of the citation. If editors roll their own then consistency is lost. Worse (because it will case more work for editors), in the long run the citations will probably throw up errors as further parameter checking is implemented. A parameter is something like |last= and |first=.

For this particular website if the articles have a date you might like to consider using {{cite encyclopedia}} instead of {{cite web}} however if you use {{cite web}} please include the parameter |access-date because the website page may change and the access-date makes it easier to check archives for the appropriate version.

-- PBS (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must have noticed that I have been re-formatting templated inline citations in List of sources for the Crusades so that data is placed into the appropriate fields eg the edit Revision as of 23:31, 19 July 2020 . Why are you adding templated inline citations to List of sources for the Crusades without passing data in to template using the appropriate parameters?

For example in the edit (Revision as of 01:44, 20 July 2020 ) you added:

 {{Cite web|last=Embree, Dan and [Rvsd. EDK], in Med Chron, 2016

instead of formatting it as:

 {{Cite web|last=Embree |first=Dan |author2=EDK (Rvsd.) EDK] |website=Med Chron |date=2016

In fact for "Med Chron" ("Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle") it would be better to use the citation template {{Cite encyclopaedia}} so the {para|website}} can be replaced with the more descriptive |encyclopedia=.

   {{Cite encyclopedia|last=Embree |first=Dan |author2=EDK (Rvsd.) EDK] |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle |date=2016

-- PBS (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you r post to my talk page. I am busy at the moment, but I will discuss this issue with you further with some ideas that might help. -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between July and September 2020. Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Grampinator,

Thank you for creating List of Crusades to Europe and the Holy Land.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

While I think the list is an interesting and important organisation of the information available on the Crusades, the lead needs to give more context and shouldn't contain a list of sources - these should be used as citations where the links aren't good enough or present, or where the source proves an assertion that is not directly borne out by the link. It's quite a big job still and I wonder if it wouldn't be better undertaken as a draft for now, out of the choppy waters of mainspace?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. It's an important and fascinating list, but FWIW I still think it is a huge project in itself and you may be better off considering developing it in draftspace, 'cos there's still a lot to do. The quotes you've used in the lead should really be contributions to the main Crusades article - a lead should be no more than four paras, which establish the topic, reasons for its notability and summarise the main points of the page - take a wade through Wikipedia:Manual of Style and particularly Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and perhaps even Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout if you're feeling robust. The section headers and sub-headers could perhaps use a little consideration (again, WP:MOS is useful if you can fight your way through a million items of stylistic restriction) - and some illustrations might be neat. There are way more references in there now, which is great, but you can never have enough of 'em. It might just be worth asking on the Crusades talk page - or perhaps one of the many projects with an interest in this area (WikiProject Middle Ages / Crusades, for a start!) for help/contributions. I know a new article is a cherished thing, but as I said, it's quite a big job and important - it deserves more eyeballs and other people helping you with the spade work. You've established the thing, there is no shame in getting some help to take it and buff it to GA standard! I do hope this is helpful! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in collaborating with others in this task force. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 02:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding my concerns. I agree that the "The Pilgrims of Christ before the Crusade" are closely related to the crusades, but I think they should be listed in a separate article. I highly appreciate your work on the sources of the crusades. I think hundreds of thousands of people who are interested in this subject will be grateful to you for your lists. What is sure, I am one of them. Borsoka (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of English translations from medieval sources, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Owain ap Gruffydd. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr G, looks like you have been doing good work on this. I was just wondering what your ambition for the article was? Have a good day. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liking the edits so far Dr G - looking forward to seeing the shape of the article when you get to the end. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, not so sure now where you are heading with Crusades? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: I'm going to continue working on the First through Third Crusades, making them barebones as everyone seems to want. I sort of wanted the article to reflect an outline comparable to Setton, et. al., but the consensus seems to be more like a World Book article. I have left the Fourth through Ninth Crusades as is, glaring errors throughout. No one has noticed for years so I doubt they will now. I totally eliminated my historiography write-up as totally out-of-scope. The main Historiography of the Crusades will have to stand, with its bizarre references to Eisenhower and Bush (but not Walter Scott as a historian). I'm sure the usual complaints will continue, likely the ones about citations resurfacing. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shame, I was liking your work Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: I'm guessing you were the only one. I am puzzled at the constant battle fought about articles being too long (e.g., List of Later Historians of the Crusades). But, I've done it before and I'm sure I'll do it again, as I can't help myself. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, WP can be a pedants paradise sometimes. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: Well, I keep telling myself it's not the end of the world. I've had some good rewrite successes (Order of Assassins, List of Sources, First Crusade) and dismal failures (Crusades, Historiography of the Crusades), and yet we persevere. I'm taking a cut at the Fifth Crusade. So far, so good. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from March from Antioch to Jerusalem during the First Crusade into First Crusade. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to be reading this and noticed it was quite clear AND in English. [1] --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:56, 4 September 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) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Hugues de Revel has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A) The fact that the Jets were trying to rape Anita was fairly common knowledge, as can be evidenced by comparative reviews of the 1961 vs 2021 films. Also, the fact that the attempted act was rape is made EXPLICIT in the 2021 film as Valentina literally refers to the Jets as “[attempted] rapists”

B) The fact that Tony and Maria had sex is made obvious by his shirtlessness in the scene thereafter. (Remember, this was the early 60s and the Hays’ Code was in effect, hence the subtlety.) 73.207.3.240 (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've suggested this might go into the Historiography section of the Crusades page. I'm keen to find it a home on a relatively high traffic page if possible, as it seems useful (a primary source, read in the original, and subtitled in English) and should be of interest to readers. I can see why you removed it from the general narrative of the First Crusades, of course. However if there is a good way to give it decent placement I would be very grateful, not least to encourage the video maker to contribute more of his works to Wikipedia. Elsewhere I've found that videos are very popular content on Wikipedia pages, if that is helpful to know as well. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did relook at this as I originally thought it should go in the article Siege of Antioch. I've added it back to First Crusade but in the historiography section that discusses Gesta. We'll see if any one else comments. I think it may be too detailed for the general Crusades article. Thanks for pointing this out. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The original change to the archiving period was not by me, it was originally 180 days and was moved in this edit on 26 June to 720 days. I moved it to 300 days here but that was reverted, so I reverted the 26 June change, not the revert of my edit. Could you please self-revert your revert to restore the status quo? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr._Grampinator, Can you please explain why outremer is the correct word for this paragraph as it's a french word? Avi8tor (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avi8tor. Outremer is the term traditionally used by Crusade historians in this context. I actually prefer to use the term "Crusader States" but other like "Outremer." Here is the first part of the "Outremer" entry in The Crusades - An Encyclopedia:

Outremer is a name used in medieval sources and in modern scholarship as a collective term for the four Frankish states established in Syria and Palestine by the First Crusade (1096-1099): the county of Edessa (1097-1150), the principality of Antioch (1098-1287), the kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1291), and the county of Tripoli (1102-1289). The kingdom of Jerusalem extended over the southern parts of Outremer, in the area historically known as Palestine (mod. Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, and adjacent regions); the other three states were situated in the north, in areas known historically as Syria and Upper Mesopotamia (roughly mod. Syria, southeastern Turkey, and Lebanon). During its relatively short existence, the county of Edessa extended much further to the east than the other Frankish states, well beyond the river Euphrates.

The word Outremer derives from the Old French expression Ou(l)tremer, meaning literally “[the land] beyond the sea,” that is, the lands on the far side of the Mediterranean Sea, seen from the perspective of Western Christians. Similar formulations are found in other languages: Spanish Ultramar, Italian Oltremare, and Middle High German daz lant über mer. An alternative name for the four Frankish principalities in modern historical writing is the “Crusader States.” Although common, this term is less accurate, since after around 1130 extremely few of their Frankish inhabitants were actually crusaders, in the sense of people who had taken a vow to go on crusade. In the Middle Ages the Frankish states were also often collectively known as Syria (Lat. Syria, Fr. Syrie).

Hope this helps. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outremer is also the modern french word for "overseas" (in English). Referring to the French territories outside France, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_d%27outre-mer, basically the same thing as you mention, my sense is that people who don't speak french will not understand the word, so perhaps you could include the English translation. Avi8tor (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avi8tor. Like I said, this is the term that historians use. The explanation as to its meaning in English is given in the terminology section of the article Crusades. Also, Crusader states, my preferred term, has a detailed discussion. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I think you're missing the point, English Wikipedia is a knowledge base read worldwide by people who might or might not know anything of the subject discussed, it's not owned by historians and it's not for historians, it's for everyone. People who read an article should be able to know immediately what something means by clicking thru to the meaning or have it listed in brackets (the simple solution). I read this article and assumed it had been translated from French and this word had been missed in the translation, hence my correction. I hope you'll include (overseas) in the text. Avi8tor (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avi8tor. Suggest you add a Wikilink to Outremer in articles where you think appropriate. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Admin help}} I posted a new article Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre)‎ on Wikipedia yesterday. It was immediately flagged for deletion. I contested it and contacted the reviewer Velella. It has now been removed by Justlettersandnumbers. What is going on? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a new article Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre)‎ on Wikipedia yesterday. It was immediately flagged for deletion. I contested it and contacted the reviewer Velella. It has now been removed by Justlettersandnumbers. What is going on? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for this adminhelp. This is already at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Grampinator. Thank you for your work on Fall of Outremer. User:Rosguill, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for the thorough writing work that you have done at this article. I see you've integrated the article as a {{main}} article of the appropriate section of Crusades, but I note that similar treatment is missing from Kingdom of Jerusalem. My familiarity with the subject matter is minimal enough that I think this is best left to you and other editors of the topic to synchronize the articles.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Thanks for you quick response. I've added to Kingdom of Jerusalem as you suggested. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at Crusades after Acre, 1291–1399. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how that got there and it does not appear that it was visible in the Edit mode. But, thanks for getting rid of it. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion WP:URLREQ#fmg.ac and elsewhere. Removal is based on extended years-long community consensus, the source is considered unreliable. -- GreenC 20:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~TPW 18:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Grampinator. Thank you for your work on Crusades of the 15th century. User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm never sure if anyone reads these things. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. G. You have created an article on the Abbey of Saint Mary of the Valley of Jehosaphat in 2016. I believe it's not linked from any relevant articles, and that's probably why I only discovered it now, and by total chance. That's 7 years too late, incl. the Covid years.

I guess you have Pringle's Curches; I don't, and Google Books offers very ltd access, not including this as far as I can tell (you didn't offer any direct links). Your article has no inline citations. These 2 facts taken together mean that it's close to impossible to read up, check, or add anything to your article by using what is probably the most useful source for Wiki editors.

It's a major site, your work would be greatly welcome, but unfortunately it's hardly having any impact or usefullness right now, which is a huge shame.

Could you please help out with inline citations, direct links, and quotes where Google Books isn't helpful? It would help tremendously! I'm starting to link it now from other articles.

PS: Pringle uses sh, so Jehoshaphat, not Jehosaphat.

PPS: There is nothing useful in this or the (miserable) Tomb of Mary art. about the history of the Crusader buildings: what did they inherit from before? What did they build? Was there, or did they actually build an upper church, or did they make do with cutting a stepped passage to the Byzantine crypt, adding just a small facade in front of the first step? What did Saladin remove from the church itself, what not, and did he repurpose it, or keep it open for prayer for both Muslims and Christians? What happened in 1187 and after to the Crusader structures apart from the church? What about the grotto?

PPPS: I see I was wrong, there areseveral articles linking to it. I'll add where I can. Strange how I didn't become aware of it.

Thank you, Arminden (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. That was one of the first articles I wrote and it shows. I've updated it with references, citations and further reading, but don't have the time now to fix further. Go for it if you can. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oi.

Yes, the citations are perfectly good, but will they still be perfectly good tomorrow? What about the next year? What about in 2035?

This is why every single Wiki page must have its references properly archived and stored. You have been around since 2016, so you should already know that, but everyone makes mistakes. Please re-add the archives on List of sources for the Crusades and List of early modern works on the Crusades as soon as possible. Thanks for your time.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barr Theo. I understand where you're coming from now, but it was quite a shock to see these articles so dramatically increase in size. First issue: articles like these are under constant pressure to cut back in size. I've spent a lot of time trying to condense them as there are some Wikipedians who will simply split an article they think is too long. Second issue: how can you possibly convert all citations on all articles to archived versions? There have to be millions if not billions of them. On one of these, you converted 132 out of 549 citations. Why not the rest? Third issue: If you're using a bot (which I'm guessing you are), they are not flawless and, in the past, I've had to check each change for correctness on the articles that I have created. Fourth issue: How can we be sure the archived version is the current one. Encyclopedia Iranica articles are frequently updated as are the unedited pages of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I'm just not seeing the value-added as Wikipedia articles are constantly updated with new information and citations. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Ramla.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Bibliography of the Crusades: Modern Works. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In creating this article, I consulted numerous other bibliographies on Wikipedia. For example, Bibliography of World War I has no sources. It would be very difficult to cite every entry. I suppose I can give it a try, but I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Basically, the General Works section includes the major works that also have bibliographies. The two articles listed under External Links could also be citations. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Gerry. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating this page, it's an excellent tool! I took the freedom to make a few minor technical changes.

I hope you don't mind a suggestion, namely that you make sure it's linked from each article it links to and more (categories, historical periods, kingdoms & empires, Churches, bishops & popes, various other people, wars, books, authors), everything related that has an own enWiki page. I'd also add many more items to the "See also" list. This way you make sure people take notice of it and consult it, otherwise it risks remaining a "forgotten island" to users & editors, and that would really be a pity.

Thanks again, and happy Christmas! Arminden (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Long time no hear. Hope all is well. I've been working on later crusades and chronicles and wished there was a common list of reliable secondary sources. And I think it looks pretty good. Once its gone through some review, I'll start proliferating it. Merry Christmas. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Grampinator. In you new article Chronology of the Crusades after 1400 you have references for "Setting 1976d" but no matching cite. You have 1976a/b/c for "The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571" volumes II to IV, all of which are linked to other references. Are the references for 1976a/b/c/d meant to be for volumes I/II/III/IV respectively? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that "Setton 1976d" should be "Setton 1976c". Let me check. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dr. Grampinator. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pipera (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert,_Count_of_Hesbaye https://sites.rootsweb.com/~medieval/addcharlENG.pdf is your primary source on page 5 the pedigree chart the entry for Landrade there are ------ this means no conclusive evidence also for Rotrude the same thing ...... with ? provided this mean uncertain parentage. I also would like to remind everyone here to become familiar on how to read pedigree charts. () means conjecture. Broken lines meand a connection and yet to establish the fact. Do I need permission to edit this article to meet what is writen on page 4 C. SETTIPANI, L'ascendance carolingienne : A propos d'ouvrages récents , to appear (1990). The chief author of this work.