User talk:Norfolkbigfish

@Norfolkbigfish:

I will at the weekend.  — AARON • ^TALK 09:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the review now  — AARON • ^TALK 15:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to House of Plantagenet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] stopped sub-infeudation where tenants subcontracted their properties and related feudal services).<ref name=PollackandMaitland>{{harvnb|Pollack and Maitland|1975|pp=332–335; 337; 354–356; 608–610}}
• IV of France]] died without a male heir. His cousin [[Philip VI of France|Phillip of Valois]] and [[Isabella of France|Queen Isabella] on behalf of her son Edward were the major claimants to the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on getting House of Plantagenet to GA.--SabreBD (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your efforts to promote House of Plantagenet to GA!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Well done for working hard to make House of Plantagenet to Good Article Status :-).  — AARON • TALK 11:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited House of Plantagenet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louis VII (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) 11:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article House of Lancaster you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It took longer than 7 days......Sorry. Good work. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article House of Lancaster you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:House of Lancaster for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article House of Lancaster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:House of Lancaster for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This IP, 68.14.160.191,[1] has removed references and referenced information from the Crusades article and has chose to engage in discussion on the talk page. Would you be interested in participating? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment at the article's PR. Looks very nice, good job! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for House of Lancaster at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited House of Lancaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celestine (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) 10:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Norfolkbigfish. Your nomination of House of Lancaster has been approved as a WikiProject Military History A-Class article. Congratulations on what I believe is your first one! On behalf of the MILHIST Coordinators, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to House of Plantagenet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Anne de Mortimer]], 1373-1399, married [[Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge]] (see below)) and it is through her descent from Lionel that the House of York claimed precedence over the House

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2014 (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 Angevins page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite 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) 00:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Angevins may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | title=A Knight at the Movies: Medieval History on Film.]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Angevins you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sotakeit -- Sotakeit (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In line with your addition of 'Angevins' to the Royal Houses of Europe template, perhaps the infoboxs on Richard the Lionheart, John, Henry II etc need to be updated. At the moment they give their royal house as 'House of Plantagenet'. I'm unsure if some would consider this contentious or not - maybe some consensus should be sought on the House of Plantagenet talk page? I'm not exactly in the know about the subject, so it may just be a case of being bold and going for it. Sotakeit (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to be brave on this one, but the whole question has been very contentious in the past! :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Angevins you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Angevins for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sotakeit -- Sotakeit (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you've the time, I've nominated an article I've been working on, Royal Intermarriage, for GA status, and a review would be great. I suppose it may cross paths with your areas of interest, so you views would be helpful. Thanks. Sotakeit (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Angevins, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Angevins are considered by many historians to be the distinct Royal House that provided the English monarchs Henry II, Richard I and King John? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Angevins. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Angevins at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Miniapolis 20:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Since you participated in the move discussion for Angevin, I hope you can help fix incoming links to the page. There are about 36 left. If you could fix even a few of these, it would be a big help. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited House of Plantagenet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bohun. 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) 08:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Owen Tudor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Owen Tudor''' ({{lang-cy|Owain ap Maredudd ap Tewdwr}} (c.1400–1461) was a [[Welsh people|Welsh]] courtier and the
• , a monk, bur. at Westminster Abbey), 223 (Berain ped.).<br>Pearce, Monks of Westminster (1916): 7 ([Stanley Hist. Mems. of Westminster Abbey discusses] “Owen, third son of Owen Tudor, and uncle of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still want me to copy edit House of Plantagenet, or are you getting a bit impatient? I prefer to take my time when copy editing, to ensure that I do not make rushed decisions, but some others can copy edit much faster than I can. I'm still more than willing to do it, since that is a very interesting subject to me, but I don't want to delay your FAC longer than I have to... --Biblioworm 14:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Biblioworm:—I am happy with what you have done to date (although I occasionally raise an eyebrow at some of the edits). It looks great and would appreciate it if you completed it to the same high standard. So my answer is yes, please. I can wait, if we are going to get this right. What would be good would be if you could give a rough estimate of when you might complete the edit based on what you have learned to date and the amount of text to go? Thanks for everything so far, regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Norfolk. Unfortunately, I am unable to continue copy editing this article. Please see the note that I left on the GOCE requests page. Regards, --Biblioworm 02:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Norfolkbigfish. I've finished the copy edit you requested. Sorry again that it took so long. I'll keep it on my watch list for now. There are some comments and questions on the talk page. One point: several names are linked many times. As the article uses so many names, I think this helps to avoid confusion, so I haven't removed any (or not many), but this might be questioned at FAC. I'm not sure. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished editing the Owen Tudor page, as per your GOCE request for it to be copy edited. A few comments:

• At the end of the Background section you included the phrase "and to the end of that predominance." I could not figure out its place in the sentence, so I removed it. Feel free to add it back in.
• Clarify the phrases "Welshmen secured positions at the court," "steward of the king's court," "the liaison prompted," and "with a position in court". Whose court? Which king? What liaison? Which court?
• At the end of the Early Life section you included the phrase "to serve in France." I could not figure out its place in the sentence, so I removed it. Feel free to add it back in.
• In relation to Tudor's son, Jasper, you wrote that he "was attainted as a traitor in 1461." In the presence of the typo I assume you had meant to say something along the lines of "was branded as a traitor in 1461." If I distorted the meaning, feel free to change it.
• Clarify the meaning of "protection from the statute on dowager queen's remarriage". It would probably be best to elaborate on this concept where the statue is initially discussed, in the Catherine of Valois section.
• I removed the sentences about the family of Margaret, wife of Tudur Fychan, as it is not relevant to how Owen Tudor descends from Rhys ap Gruffydd, the purpose of the Ancestry section. I would not recommend adding the section back in, as it adds clutter to the article, however, you can add it back if you wish.

Otherwise, it looks great!. You should be good for a GA nomination. Hampton11235 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2015 (UT

* Many thanks @Hampton11235: - that was well done. I'll address these points in the near future. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2015 (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 Crusades page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter 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) 00:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...it is starting to look a lot better! Hchc2009 (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...but unfortunately, it's too unstable for a full copyedit at this time. Please feel free to relist it at the Guild of Copy Editors request page when it settles. All the best, Miniapolis 18:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Crusades at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 22:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for this and your patience when the editing war erupted temporarily @Miniapolis:—great work. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:13, 7 October 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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NBF, I'll start work on this one today. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 1394 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duties

I came to this topic from the blurb on the main page and have commented at WP:ERROR. As a major contributor, you may be able to help, please. Andrew D. (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this is not a main page error, please conduct any further discussion at the appropriate venue, namely the article talk page. Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm trying to ce Crusades, but the definitions don't seem to match the body text. The defs in two sections on the page seem to want to limit crusades to only those sanctioned by the relevant Pope, and then draw a further distinction between (sanctioned) religious actions and (also sanctioned) political ones. However, the pages also discusses shepherds' crusades etc. which seem to be only (non-sanctioned) popular movements. Thoughts? Change or explain definition (preferable) or remove popular movements (less preferable)?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lingzhi:—thanks for the help. This one has caused massive argument on here in the past and also generally amongst historians. I suspect they do match but arn't worded clearly. What is called pluralistic really does cover the Papal sanctioned Crusades i.e. a crusade is any military activity sanctioned by a Pope for religious reasons. What is called narrower I think is any campaign by Europeans to recover the Holy Land in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries which just about covers the popular crusades although of course they never even got there. I could source this to the OED. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If people have been arguing about this then yes of course we must source it to the best source(s) available. I will probably have some time tomorrow or maybe the next day to fix things according to your post here. Please do look over the lede and see if I screwed anything up other than the def of crusade. :-) Will keep working but am busy in real life right now. later!   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• PS while I'm here the lede mentions poerty and songs 'n stuff but I don't see it in body text. PLease see other comments on talk page. More comments later. Tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've actually done some genuinely nontrivial editing so far... I'm on vacation now, though. Things are slowing down here and I might have more time in the next few days to do more editing, but I can't guarantee that. So, I could mark the Crusades as "done" on the GOCE page, or we could just continue to play it by ear as we have been. What do you think?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lingzhi:—I think play it by ear. You have already improved this article a great deal thx, it would be a shame not to complete what you can editing wise. Is this ok with you, though? Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I could mark it Done on the GOCE page but still continue editing later, maybe three weeks from now, after my vacation. At that time I would have much better access to computer time and reference resources. For the next two weeks or so I can make no promises about being able to do anything at all (tho I might find some time in there somewhere). OK?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lingzhi:—OK with me, thanks for what you have done, have a good holiday!Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I don't know what you want to do on the Crusades PR. Do you want me to help add missing info or make corrections or whatever as suggested at the PR? I may have already told you that I know exactly zero about the Crusades other than what I learned during ce the article. I have access to sources, and can track down info in many cases, but perhaps you might be more familiar with the information and the sources and so might do things faster and/or with better accuracy. I actually don't know if that's the case. You also seem to edit sporadically... Do you want help?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lingzhi:—help would be great thanks Lingzhi as I edit when I can but don't have too much spare time for it. I can't claim to be a Crusades expert either, but have found it interesting. I knoiw what it takes to get an article through FAC and I don't think I have the capacity right now, though the article deserves it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Historiography of the Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Robertson. 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) 11:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		For you contributions to the article House of Plantagenet, I hereby award you with the WikiChevrons. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		For you contributions to the article House of Plantagenet, you are hereby awarded this Royalty's Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crusades you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Crusades you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Crusades for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Auntieruth is actually Auntieruth55; you missed the numbers so your ping won't work, AND if you edit the name to add the "55" you need to delete the time/sig stamp and add a new one or your ping won't work again (for a different reason)... I am busy now but if no one else helps I might be free in a week or two. Cheers.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey. I just can't shake all the things going on & chores I have to do in real life. I am very sorry, but I don't think I can help with Crusades. I really enjoyed learning while editing it, so I might return again later, but.... just not now. Sorry.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lingzhi:—NP, good luck with all that proper stuff, and thanks for all you did. It was a great help. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Crusades at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Norfolkbigfish -- I hope you don't mind, but I made a few more edits tweaking your clarifying edits, all of which were definite improvements. There is one sentence that I still think needs attention:

• While Helen Nicholson argues that the increased contact between cultures brought about by the Crusades improved the Western perception of Islamic culture, it is difficult to compare the impact of the Crusades with other interactions between Europeans and Islam.

(a) Who says, or thinks, "it is difficult to compare..."?

(b) If not introducing the second of two simultaneous actions, "while" usually introduces a contrast. Here, I don't see a contrast, or, at least, the contrast is not clear. The first clause is:

• contact...improved Western perception of Islamic culture

The second clause is saying:

• difficult to compare...Crusades with other interactions.

The two clauses seem to have little to do with each other. Do you mean, perhaps:

• It is difficult to compare the impact of this increased contact to other interactions between Europeans and the Islamic world.

and, to make it even clearer, and make it clear that there are differences of opinion among historians,

• other historians say that it is difficult to compare...:

• While Helen Nicholson argues that the increased contact between cultures brought about by the Crusades improved the Western perceptions of Islamic culture, other historians say that it is difficult to compare the impact of this increased contact to other interactions between Europeans and the Islamic world.

But I still wonder about the necessity of introducing the idea of comparison here.

 – Corinne (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Corinne:—thanks for that, it made me think a lot for the sake on a sentence. I have edited and give it a go to remove the compare. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A slight improvement. Here is the first part of the paragraph as it is now. I will number the sentences for ease of discussion:

• (1) Historians argue that western Christian and Islamic interaction was a significant, ultimately positive, factor in the development of European civilisation and the Renaissance. (2) Western perceptions of Islamic culture improved through many interactions between Europeans and Islam across the entire length of the Mediterranean Sea. (3) This makes it difficult for historians to identify the source of various examples of cultural cross fertilisation. (4) However, Helen Nicholson believed a significant contribution was made by increased contact between cultures brought about by the Crusades.

Regarding sentence (2):

(a) I don't think the interactions were between people ("Europeans") and a religion ("Islam"). They should be between two groups of people, two religions, two cultures, or two spheres of influence. You might get away with "Europeans and the Islamic world", or "Europeans and the people of the Islamic world", or "Europeans and the culture of the Islamic world", or "Europe and the Islamic world".

(b) You should have "the" before "many interactions". I also think it would help to give a time period, even a rough time period, here, perhaps at the end of the sentence, something like "during the medieval period", "during the Middle Ages", from the xth to the xth centuries".

Regarding sentence (3), "This makes it difficult for historians to identify the source of various examples of cultural cross fertilisation,":

(a) The word "this" is a little vague. It sounds like it refers to "Western perceptions...improved," and it shouldn't.

(b) I would re-word the sentence as follows:

• Historians thus find it difficult to identify the specific source of various instances of cultural cross-fertilisation.

I would re-word sentence (2), turning it around, and join sentence (3) to it:

• The many interactions between Europeans and the Islamic world across the entire length of the Mediterranean Sea led to improved perceptions of Islamic culture, but also make it difficult for historians to identify the specific source of various instances of cultural cross-fertilisation.

If you want to, you can put the time period after "Mediterranean Sea".

By the way, regarding sentence (1), it was I who added, in this edit, the phrase "ultimately positive" as I was re-wording it. You didn't change it, so I guess that means you approved, but I just hope it reflects the source; you might want to check; if it doesn't, you could remove these two words and the sentence would still make sense.

Regarding sentence (4), I think this sentence is related to sentence (1); in fact, it supports it. Why not move it, and join it to sentence (1)? There is no reason for the contrast expressed by "However". Would it make sense simply to write for sentence (1):

• Many historians, including Helen Nicholson, argue that the interaction between the western Christian and Islamic cultures was a significant, ultimately positive, factor in the development of European civilisation and the Renaissance.

(If you're going to indicate a time period for the interactions, it should be in this sentence, not the next one.) So, if you do this, the first part of this paragraph would read:

• Many historians, including Helen Nicholson, argue that the interaction between the western Christian and Islamic cultures [optional time period here] was a significant, ultimately positive, factor in the development of European civilisation and the Renaissance. The many interactions between Europeans and the Islamic world across the entire length of the Mediterranean Sea led to improved perceptions of Islamic culture, but also make it difficult for historians to identify the specific source of various instances of cultural cross-fertilisation.

Two sentences instead of four. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I like this @Corinne:—Thank You. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I added a "2" after "Crusades" in the section header to distinguish it from anther "Crusades" section higher up on the page.  – Corinne (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Crusades you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crusades for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to follow step 5 on the FAC instructions - add {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive1}} to the top of the nominations page. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you an A-Class Medal for your great work on the House of Lancaster, House of Plantagenet, and Crusades articles. Zawed (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry it got archived, and that I was not fast enough with reviewing (I actually wrote down a couple of more points which I was going to post). Its an important article and it takes energy and time. If you plan to re-submit it in a few weeks, I can offer to finish my review in the meantime, so that I can support immediately once you re-nominated it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• NP @Jens Lallensack: and thank you for your help. I do plan to give it another go, perhaps after the copyedit and working on some useful feedback provided by @Richard Nevell:. So I would like to accept your offer of help if that is ok with you. Probably best if you put your points onto the articles talk page—what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it didn't make it through this time round, but I'm more than happy to keep discussing the feedback on the talk page. I might need the occasional prod! Richard Nevell (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Crusades has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with your ongoing FA efforts.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, @Twofingered Typist:—much appreciated, excellent work. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I’m not very active nowadays with work but I’ve noticed you’ve added a fair number of cn tags to the Angevin Empire article. I rewrote a fair amount of the article a number of years ago and so I would guess it lacking enough citations is in large part my fault! I will aim to go through it at some point soon and add the relevant citations. Luckily I still have all the books on hand that I used! Many thanks! SamWilson989 (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatima (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring, especially its rules governing more than three consequtive reverts (WP:3RR), because you have just broken these rules ([2], [3], [4] and [5]). I also ask you to concentrate on the improvement of the article. We both dedicated plenty of time to it. I would not be happy if it were relisted. Borsoka (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring, especially its rules governing more than three consequtive reverts (WP:3RR), because you are about broking these rules. You can ask for third opinion on the issue. Borsoka (talk) 15:59, 31 October 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Borsoka (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV is a basic principle of our community. We are not here to push certain PoVs, but to try to provide a fair picture of all relevant scholarly PoVs. Your edits in the "Crusades" article, your methods of communication and some of your remarks about your fellow editors suggest that you are unable to approach this subject in a neutral way. Pushing a single point of view is a main pattern of disruptive editing and disruptive editing may result in a topic ban. Borsoka (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think you can edit the "Crusade" article? Identifying an Oxford historian as a PR manager may suggest that you do not have enough knowledge of the crusades. I assume that you actually read Prawer, but there are dozens of other historians who wrote books about the crusades. Actually, congratulations - you almost achieved a new FA. :) Borsoka (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Put the link to the PR manager you cited on your talk page Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. He works as PR manager. However, his book was published by the Oxford University Press. Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My question is still valid. During the last two months, you may have realised that your limited knowledge of the crusades prevent you from properly summarize scholarly views. Almost half of the sentences in the old version of the article contained original research or original synthesis ([6]). With your remarkable communication skills and social intelligence you almost achieved a FA promotion, but during the last two months you have been able to make few edits which did not contain new pearls of original research or original synthesis. I emphasize that I am willing to cooperate with you, because your literary skills are outstanding, especially in comparison with my primitive English, but you must be exhausted. Sorry, but I have been working with people for decades, so nice sentences containing false information can rarely impress me. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am really tolerant and patient. However, you are unable to make edits without making new errors. Are you still sure that you should edit the article? Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. I am more and more convinced that only a topic ban can solve this problem. Borsoka (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	I think you have earned this... You have shown very impressive patience. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(not a warning or anything heavyhanded) Wikipedia is a place where people who are passionate about things often need to collaborate. That passion is A Good Thing, even if it leads to disagreement. To keep things as calm as possible and help everyone focus on deciding the often difficult disagreements, just comment on the issues and not the other user's manner, style of editing etc. I know that policy gives a fair amount of latitude in this area, and we all feel justified sometimes, but everything works much smoother if you take this advice. (Click the link in my sig for more on this type of advice). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point Dweller—my mistake, I'll bare that in mind. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to bung this on your userpage:

{{User:UBX/NCFC}}

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Click here --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Historiography of the Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Historiography of the Crusades at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template has been changed to reflect the status of the copyedit request (done). --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Norfolkbigfish,

I saw your GOCE request for Historiography of the Crusades, it looks like a very interesting article. Please let me know when you nominate it for good article, I would love to review it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do @Iazyges:, thank you. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges:—just tagged Historiography of the Crusades as a GAN. Let me know what you think, it is tidier than it was but as it is a bit of a niche subject it doesn't get much attention from other editors. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Historiography of the Crusades you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did not identify the source of the material in [here your edit]. My guess is that it was copied from Crusades

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

In addition, if my supposition is correct, could you add the addition as explained at the link? S Philbrick(Talk) 11:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC) ______[reply]

The article Historiography of the Crusades you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Historiography of the Crusades for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Outremer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited First Crusade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Outremer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Outremer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your achieving the near impossible in bringing Outremer to Good Article status. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Outremer at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outremer, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frederick II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Please read instead of editing. Borsoka (talk)

Today you wrote about six sentences in the article about the crusader states. They contain two serious errors and a minor mistake ([7]). I do not want to mention your remarks about Tancred's princely title. After reviewing your edits for more than six months, I am convinced that your edits do not improve articles about the crusades or crusader states, but destroy them. Coming through pages and negligently summarizing their content can hardly be described as editing. I know that you were made believe that you could write high-quality articles about the crusades. I think you have already realised that editors who have read dozens of books about the crusades and their historiography can detect the obvious limits of your knowledge with ease. I kindly ask you to consider my previous advice and improve your skills in articles with more limited subjects.Borsoka (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Most Wikipedia users deal with their compatriots in a polite fashion. Some don't. I may pick up the article, but only after everyone has moved on. In my experiences here and in business is that some one person needs to step up and rewrite these things. I've been in that position a few times, mostly successfully, but when the powers-that-be decide they don't your stuff, it's just too much bother to fight it. If you're trying to edit an article that they were the original author, forget about it. Back to the article, my current thinking is to follow Srnec's suggestion to have a separate, more detailed article on Medieval Sources. Adding all the material that needs to be there into this article would, I think, be overwhelming. I would add a section on archaeology in the original article, but other than that the structure seems sound. My only concern is that the new article would be flagged for immediate deletion as there is already an article on the subject. I've only thought about is cursorily and there may not be enough for a separate article, but I think there is. If I decide to go that route, I'll let you know. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Assise sur la ligece has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

In the final sentence with word "balliage" appears. I was completely unable to find a meaning for the word except as an alternate spelling of a word referring to a specific woman's hairstyle, which I suspect has no relevance. Perhaps, if you know, you could add a definition in brackets following the word.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for appreciating my recent edits. I think you deserve a drink down at the Fat Cat for your efforts on the article, and medieval history in general. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Amitchell125—that sounds good, maybe when this Covid madness dies down Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Norfolkbigfish,

You say there was a consensus on Talk:Crusades to split this article but I see only a very long discussion from February & March 2020 and no RFC discussion or any recent discussion at all. Where was this consensus arrived at? And why did you undertake this large, bold move today? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crusader states you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I am shamelessly after a favour. I realise that it is outside of your normal area, but I have Third Punic War at FAC and was wondering if you had the time and inclination to give it a look over? If not, I entirely understand. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild-I'll try and find some time to have a look it over. With the caveat it is not a period I am too familiar with. Looks like it has go a bit convoluted already!! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that is a surface impression. It is being reviewed by two subject experts, so there is much thrashing out of detailed issues. But these all seem to be getting resolved amicably. This is my twelfth FAC from the Punic Wars, so I am confident that it will all get sorted out. I would actually like a review from a non-period expert, even if a little superficial. I worry a that we may be assuming knowledge and that it may not read too well for the mythical "ordinary reader". So comments on grammar, flow and "what does that mean?" would be welcome.

If you could give it a skim I would appreciate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusading, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Military order.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusading, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Toledo and Adalia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dar al-Islam.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Borsoka (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're looking for here, but the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia Itineria and Travelogues of Palestine are where I got the terms. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkfish--I'm getting considerable pressure to spilt this article, which I have done twice now, and any further splitting would be detrimental. I know you've chimed in before on the issue of article length vs. readable prose. So what ever you can do would be appreciated. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Grampinator, FWIW I think you are doing a remarakable job on the sources suite of articles, in the face of some epic WP pedantry. I hope I am helping rather than hindering, let me know if not. RFC is intended to get some fresh eyes on the subject, which I hope will apply WP:COMMONSENSE. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can't decide if the amusement factor of all of this is greater than the frustration factor. (I have to be careful about what I say as the DWS (deep Wikipedia state) is apparently monitoring our Talk pages.) I was hoping someone would confess to the view that there should never be a largest article, but no one would bite. Nevertheless, the good thing about this little exercise was that it focused my attention on the whole picture. I never wanted to write on modern historians as I was really focused on the medieval and classical ones, and didn't know much about them other than the usual cast of characters. Plus I though that the references would just be links to Amazon. But I was pleasantly surprised and am learning a lot. I did move all of the 20th century stuff to the modern section and created a new one on archaeology, which needs to be beefed up with some material from the Sources page. The new article is under 600k, so I give it another 24 hours before the calls to split are renewed. Thanks for your input. [Memo for the Record: This post is for informational purposes only and is not intended in any way to influence any current or pending Wikipedia actions by the owner of this page. The undersigned believes his/her actions are in full compliance with all applicable regulations.] Dr. Grampinator (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for your input. I can't believe the ugly tone the discussion took, but shouldn't be surprised given the events of the day. I moved the Traveller section over to the archaeology document, so this one is now 20th in line. I hope they now turn their attention to some of the other stellar articles in the "longest" list. Sadly, I just got a copy of a book (Austin Evans, Bibliography of English Translations from Medieval Sources) that will push it back to the forefront once I start adding the material in. If you're interested in this stuff, it looks to well worth the $8 I paid on Amazon. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Crusading has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I'll point out a couple of things that came up in the course of my copy edit. Another editor insists on a specific citation in the lede for the term "sanctioned" by the Latin Church. They are not satisfied with the citations in several areas in the body of the article where this is mentioned. I added several "Clarification" tags in the Historiography section where the sentences make no sense. I added rough translations for Latin and French terms so this is consistent throughout the article. (You may not feel this is necessary, please feel free to remove them if this is the case.) Best of luck with the article moving forward.I see that there is much discussion around it and the topic in general.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist:, just for clarification: the editor does not insist on a specific citation for the term "sanctioned", but for the whole first sentence. As an other editor mentioned, for the time being the whole article is a fork of the "Crusades" article. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka Thanks for the clarification. 12:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Crusader states you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Crusader states for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to address Borsoka's numerous remaining comments any time soon? If not, I'll fail it and you can renominate it once you've had time to deal with them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sturmvogel 66, happy for you to fail this. Borsoka is in a bit of a rolling edit rather than a review, probably better if I don't get involved in that. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Crusader states has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Should you choose to do it, best of luck with the GAN!

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Twofingered Typist—much appreciated. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Norfolkigfish, I've gone and replaced the top map in the article with a revised version based on the map that was there. The new version, has imo text that is easier to read, and it makes the Crusader States more prominent. I can add more to the map if you have any suggestions.

Some of the other maps in the article are not properly referenced on WikiCommons and are of dubious quality, so I might be making some changes to them as well to help you get them through the GAN process. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should support initiatives of contributors, unless we have some reasons not to, because, obviously these contributors worked on these initiatives for some reason. This is just common sense. I see no reason to object the split as described by johnbod and you, so I believe we should support this plan. This being said, even though it will not affect my position, I am curious to know what was the original motivation. Is it only because the article felt too big? There is another reason that would make sense. It could very well be that you felt that too much space was given to the traditional crusades and this created an imbalance. WP:NPOV says that the importance given to a point of view must correspond to the notability of the point of view, but this does not apply here, because a subject is not a point of view. Covering less an aspect (which is a subject in itself) and more another aspect does not break any rule. For example, saying very little about milhist so that it is covered in another article is not pushing one point of view against another. It breaks no rule. It is something to be decided among editors. However, some people might somehow attach a point view, an implicit statement, to the space given to the traditional crusades in the "top" article and wish that this point of view is expressed in Wikipedia. I have no idea what could be this point of view, but doing this would be very disrespectful of Wikipedia philosophy, because points of view must be attributed to their authors. They should not be expressed by Wikipedia, especially not in an indirect manner. But, here, I am just making wild guesses, because I don't understand why people are against your proposal and they provide no explanation. Borsoka says it's because the traditional crusades are linked to all other crusades, but that's not a big problem. It just mean some duplication is required to give a context for these links. It breaks no rules. It's not enough to reject the proposal. Certainly not enough to justify these long discussions. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Mayers II—I attempt to answer this in a roundabout way by explaining my overall motivation and a little bit of my WP history. I like the challenge of shaping this sort of article in WP and getting it validated through GA, Milhist ACR and FAC. When I came to Crusades it was one of those C-Class articles from the dawn of WP that was based on uploaded out of copyright text. It was like what I found with House of Plantagenet which also had contested scope, a plethora of other summary articles e.g. House of York, House of Lancaster and a wealth of detail articles. I achieved GA, ACR and FA but establishing a scope that was suitably summarised and uncontentious. There were a few false starts but to this day I believe it may be the only dynastic article on WP at FA. With Crusades it failed three times. First time in lack of content, particularly on the Crusader States. Second time it timed out. Thirdly, I believe on the conflict between narrative history and thematic history. There are scores of popular histories that start with a mention of 7th century Islamic expansion, Manzikert, Pope Urban and run through the traditional crusades, Reconquista, a bit of political crusading, the Northern Crusades, some popular crusades a bit about Heretics and Cathars and then peter out for no reason in the 15th or 16th centuries. There are editors involved in this debate who believe that because there are numerous books formatted like this, this article should follow this chronology. There is no rationale for what connects all these events and there is no easy way to format this in a way that does not give WP:UNDUE or omits detail entirely. I think on WP List of Crusades to Europe and the Holy Land already covers this quite nicely. The subject is dominated by the First Crusade and following that the numbering system gives a false sense of coherence. Crusading in the Middle East was continual from the dawn of the First Crusade through to the fall of Acre with a couple of aftershocks. To cover this, draw the various strands together and fill in the gaps an article is needed dedicated to the traditional crusades. Quite rightly it has been pointed out that this does not cover the entire range of academic concerns on Crusades. It is always worth having Constable’s definitions in mind but not be too wedded to them. Traditionalists, I have covered above, and I think requires an article. Popularists only include those where there were groundswells of popular supports e.g. First and popular crusades. This I feel is too narrow. Pluralists include all conflict clerically sanctioned. Better, but popular crusades are therefore excluded so still a little bit narrow. Lastly, generalists include everything, and the article becomes one of Catholic Holy War albeit called crusades. This resolves several issues. Firstly, Reconquista and other formative conflicts started before there was even the idea of a crusade, indeed the word was not used until the end of the 12th century, crusading was not formulised until the beginning of the 13th and Tyerman has argued that there were no crusades in the 12th century between the First and the Third (although his tongue may have been in his cheek). This I think is the other article, I hope you can see both are hugely different. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping back a bit, my most important question is which of the two articles will be your primary target for FAC. I suspect that it is Crusades and your purpose is to have a scope that is "suitably summarised and uncontentious" for this article, but maybe not. I think it will be a good idea to focus on Crusades reaching FAC at the least as much as Crusading reaching FAC.

This is a GAA that I create for myself, because abbreviations and acronyms sometimes need a glossary:

GA : Good article, which is Good article in the Military History Assessment criteria.

Milhist ACR : Military history A-Class review in the Military History Assessment criteria.

FAC : Featured article candidate, which is Featured article candidacy in the Military History Assessment criteria.

When you write "There is no rationale for what connects all these events" do you mean there is no rationale at all or no rationale is provided in the chronological history format, which you previously described? I bet it's the latter, but I am checking.

Can you be more specific about the WP:UNDUE that is created in this format? I guess you answer this with "The subject is dominated by the First Crusade", but I am checking. Similarly, which details are otherwise omitted?

You write "This resolves several issues". Could you be more specific? "This" is not clear from the context, especially given the fact that you mostly previously explained approaches that do not work, including Constable’s classification to define subjects. I bet you mean the generalists approach, but I am checking.

Most of what you say to support "this" approach has to do with the usage of the term "Crusade" (by different scholars in different perspectives). For example, whether or not there were crusades in the 12th century between the First and the Third depends on how we define "crusade". Are you suggesting that the subject of the article is about that. This could indeed be an interesting subject and there are perhaps enough sources for WP:Notability. I would not worry that the subject is too focused. On the contrary, precise subjects are better. No need to merge artificially. OTOH, given the context provided by previous discussions, I bet this is not the subject. I believe the subject is the generalists definition as offered by Constable. The meaning of Crusades among scholars is one aspect only.

If my understanding is correct, I would suggest an RfC that asks "Should there be an article that focuses on the traditional crusades?" with the hope that the consensus will be Yes. One thing that I would suggest is that we do not say that Crusades is this article. This is a separate question and it should be answered separately, because it is a technical aspect related to the work already done in Crusades (or rather the expectation with which it was done before your split). My bet is that the choice of the majority will be that Crusades is about all crusades, but that's fine and if it is discussed in the RfC, I suggest that we agree with this technical aspect and only concern ourselves with the question of the RfC. There is a good chance that there will be a strong support, because, for example, it is part of the strategy of RandomCanadian. By the way, I cannot see why you do not support RandomCanadian, because the global organization is the same. The target article in the merge that RandomCanadian proposes cannot belong to RandomCanadian, nor Crusading should belong to you. So, why not use this target in the same way as you want to use Crusading. The outcome would be exactly what you want. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Mayers II—I think that is a good idea. The only reason I don't support RandomCanadian is in timing. Merging Crusading into Crusades rather moves this article, which is predominately traditional anyway, away from the end point. If the RFC you suggest was successful, and a Crusades to the Middle East was created first I could fully support RC, as I suspect could Johnbod. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered my other questions. I will assume that my tentative answer to my question is correct, if you don't answer. Otherwise, I would appreciate to know what's wrong with my tentative answer. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following five steps toward an RfC.

1. Invitation. We invite all contributors that are interested to participate in this five steps approach as way to move forward. This step could be done later, say after the second step.
2. The framework. We create the pages Talk:Crusades/Crusades (Traditional view) and Talk:Crusades/Crusades (General view). The titles are only informative, not final. At the beginning of the traditional view page, we add "This articles covers all crusades in the traditionalists view. For the generalists view see Talk:Crusades/Crusades (General view)." We do the equivalent in the general view page.
3. Temporary merge. Only as a starting point, we put all contents that concern crusades in the generalists view page. This would of course include content that makes sense in the traditionalists view. The text should be coherent. This step can be done in parallel with the next step when it's obvious, not controversial.
4. Split. We create the same structure in terms of sections and subsections in the traditionalists view page. We move every thing that is pertinent to appreciate the traditional crusades from the general view to the traditional view page. In the process, editing will be required to keep both pages coherent and reasonably self-contained. Link between pages should be used to avoid unnecessary duplication. We reorganize sections in the traditional view page, e.g., merge sections that are too small, if needed.
5. RfC. We create a text that explain the issue. I believe that part of the issue is that having a page on the generalists view is seen as opposed to the traditionalists view, but yet this split is not a content fork and breaks no Wikipedia rules. We call the RfC. This step can be done much earlier, but the idea is that we must do some work so that the RfC is well prepared.

By the way, you use incorrectly the concept of WP:undue in your above comment. Having an imbalance toward a subtopic does not break WP:Undue, because a subtopic is not a point of view. This is explained in WP:NPOVFACT and WP:SPINOFF. It would not break any Wikipedia rules to keep that imbalance, but it does not mean that we must keep it. Though, if an implicit statement is made by this imbalance, then it breaks WP:WIKIVOICE because it makes Wikipedia asserts implicitly a statement. It creates an editorial bias. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Dominic Mayers II—I am not really interested in WP rules anyway, they are only there for guidance, they are not enforced and they are largely open to interpretation. The point I was making was that in order to beef up the content that is beyond the crusades to the Middle East content with tenuous or no connection to crusades has been added. Events are given undue weight, or indeed some weight, that they don't warrant considering the subject matter, only because similar events that there have a rationale for inclusion are mentioned. Examples include the development of Latin polities in the Iberian Peninsula, Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, the expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Spain in 1492, Reisen, Władysław II Jagiełło,Jadwiga of Poland, Battle of Grunwald, Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347, and Feast of the Pheasant. All may be notable. But there is no, or little, rationale for their inclusion given in the article and in most cases none exists. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply share your view that WP rules are there for guidance only, but this guidance is very important, because it is a way to get a common perspective. Anyway, I nevertheless made a mistake to bring these rules here, because it was a diversion from the main point, which is the five steps proposal. What is your feelings about this approach. I understand what you wrote (you refer to the fact that the subject must be precise and content should be pertinent given the subject). I interpret it as a point against a mix of the generalists view with the traditionalists view (though your point might be that, say the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, does not even fit in a generalists view), but I would like to see the connection with the proposal. It's similar to RandomCanadian's proposal (it is a merge together with a separate article on the traditional crusades), but it's also indirectly conditional to a successful RfC as you requested in your support to it. Perhaps, the link with the proposal is that the merge step seems unnatural, but it's temporary and if it really appears unnatural, it's good, because the split will be natural. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've tuned out of the Great Debates, but sometimes look in - it looks as though ever-deepening ruts are being worn in the mud. But if there is ever a moment when you think an intervention would be helpful do let me know. I admire your patience; if it was me I think I'd find something else to do for a year or so. Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Johnbod—much appreciated. I think your last sentence probably contains some useful advice for me :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find what kind of word play there is in "Crusadering", but could not find any. I don't understand it. It must be a typo. However, I do understand that you are not happy with the outcome of these long discussions. I do not understand exactly why though. It's not only exhaustion, because, even if one worked hard to get something, if the result is good, one usually feels like celebrating and I don't see that you are celebrating at all. I would appreciate to better understand why you do not seem satisfied. A couple of reasons come to my mind, but they are only guesses. I would prefer to hear it directly from you. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke. I hope your first two sentences are too, but I'm not sure. Never mind. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you Johnbod. I was mistaken when I wrote that it was a typo. My formal English was not good enough to appreciate it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Mayers—I am not really sure I understand the question, I agree 100% with Alsee that this is a young article that should be given time to grow and evolve in the normal WP way. It needs the input of other editors using other sources to get to the point I thought it should. I also agree with Dr Graminator that it would be useful to WP:RM it to Crusading movement as the name always prompts some unnecessary contention. I imagine that Srnec would support this, and it was he who placed the original tag, because he has suggested Crusading instituitions. Personally, I don't think instuitions is as easy to understand, particularly when the article should include popular perceptions outside formal organisations. Btw Crusadering is Johnbod's title, I suspect it is a typo as well, but we all know what he means. It is probably grammatically correct, but my formal English doesn't go that far. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it just me that had the impression given your above exchange with Johnbod that you were disappointed with the outcome of these long discussions, but you do not seem so disappointed after all. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think Crusading instituitions and ideologies is better than Crusading movement. I understand that Crusading movement has the advantage of being broader, but it so broad that it certainly includes the milhist, maybe not in your mind, but it actually does, and something so broad might invite oppositions. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:CONCISE applies here Dominic Mayers. Happy to go with consensus, but I remain of the opinion that Crusading movement is more appropriate. As Dr Graminator pointed out we can use Riley-Smith and the Oxford Encyclopedia as a starting point, which uses this exact phrase. This article should refer to the military campaigns, but just not at the MILHIST level of detail e.g. the failure that was the second crusade can de covered in a sentence, but its impact on the confidence of Christendom lasted 50 years and could be a useful thread through a number of topics. FWIW Johnbod and I have been involved in these debates for years and some editors make it much harder than it should be. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was indeed referring to a concern that "Crusading movement" overlap with "Crusades". It's again the duplication issue that shows up here, but, as you know, it has always been the main concern. What is needed is to remove the misunderstanding that WP is against an overlap of subjects. There is no need for Crusades to be seen as being about the traditional crusades or for Crusading movement to be seen strictly about institutions and ideologies. The overlap is fine and we simply deal with it when we consider specific content. When we consider how content is included in Crusading movement, we do what is best for this article while taking advantage of the article Crusades and, reciprocally, when we consider how content is included in Crusades, we do what is best for this article while taking advantage of the article Crusading movement. We avoid overlap as much as possible (see below), but without compromising in any way the quality of each article. In this manner, both articles with their distinct though overlapping scope have the best chance to reach FA. No Wikipedia policies can be broken by having two great articles. Space is not an issue in WP. In fact, all core policies apply to a single article at a time: they say nothing about how two articles must relate. The guidelines for admissibility of articles do consider splitting and merging, but they basically say that editors must use their judgment and they are only guidelines anyway. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time that I have the above view, which basically says that we must not worry about duplication, I must admit that I am very concerned when I see duplication in Wikipedia for a reason that is not mentioned often enough: we have limited human resources. Many articles that could easily be consolidated into a single article are not a good use of our human resources. It means that each article receives less attention and because of that might more easily violate core policies. A good global organization of the WP articles, even though it is not covered by core policies, is important for an optimal use of our human resources and it is also less confusing for the end users. An overlap is fine in the case of Crusades vs Crusading movement, but I appreciate that people are concerned when they see an overlap. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Mayers, a tiny proportion of the users of WP edit, and only a tiny proportion of those edit in this topic so this is very much a red herring. In any case when it comes to overlapping, if that is the major concern, you are considering the wrong article. For example, if you consider the related articles Crusades, Crusading, First Crusade and Crusader States the article with the greatest overlap with the other articles is Crusades, and the one with the least overlap is Crusading. This would be expected because all the other articles are dominated by MILHIST, and Crusading is not. This is even allowing for the fact that a certain amount of overlap would be expected due to the page furniture, shared teminology and events. Crusading and Crusades are very different articles within the context of the same topic. As Almee pointed out Crusading is a young article that will grow and develop. As Dr Grampinator pointed out changing the name to Crusader movement would be helpful to readers. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I follow your counterargument. You might be correct that the proportion of users that edit this topic is tiny, but this justifies my concern more than it makes it a red herring. We should adopt a strategy to optimize the usefulness of the many experts, perhaps not yet WP editors, that visit the topic and might sometimes offer their time to check its exactitude, etc. An efficient global organization of the topic, which avoid unnecessary duplication, seems a natural part of such a strategy. I do not want to minimize the importance that the tiny group that you have in mind somehow feels that it owns the topic in Wikipedia. It is good that this tiny group feels responsible for the topic, but their responsibility should include an effort to optimize the use of other editors. Your counterargument also ignores that an efficient global organization is not only the one that is seen by the tiny group, but also the one that is seen by the ordinary users. In other words, you might know that there is little overlap between Crusades and Crusading movement, but, for an ordinary user, this is not obvious from these names or even from the leads of the articles. This is a global organization issue, even if there is no overlap in the understanding of the tiny group. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish. My plan is to clean up the First Crusade and the first-tier articles it references. Mostly just for terminology, consistency and to make sure citations are to references that are generally relevant and available. Eventually, I want to do the same for Crusades, once the differences between it and Crusading Movement are clear. Crusades will be a bit harder, as the powers that be will fight every modification. I also want to fix Historiography, but again, that's a battle. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to see one of your customary tidy-ups on the Crusades, particularly the Histography section, Dr. Grampinator. To me, it looks in a relatively good state, pretty close to the version that passed ACR and nearly reached FA—but it does need a fresh pair of eyes. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish I expect I'll finish up the First Crusade this week, and let it gel for a while. I would like to start on the Crusades, but am still playing around with some ideas. My personal view is that Crusades should focus on the straightforward military history and personalities of the major players a la the Routledge Companion, with more of the Crusading movement stuff (Tyerman, later Riley-Smith, etc.) in that article. I do think Riley-Smith's Oxford History is a good starting place with newer material (e.g., Jotischky) and some of the later historians who offer a bit of alternate history mixed in. I think a novice reader would be more comfortable with a straight-shot history (Crusades) followed by the more modern ideas (Crusading movement), but that's just me. After a year of thinking about Historiography, I'm starting to think that maybe there should be one that discusses the "chronologies" in Crusades and one that discusses things like "just war" and Erdmann's work in Crusading movement. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I've begun to work on the Crusades, and was thinking there should be a summary section on the Crusading Movement, a la what you've been working on. After Section 5.0, and maybe move the Military Orders section under it? Thoughts? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Grampinator—I have been following your edits, looking good. Although it is a British English article and some International English spellings have slipt through. When you finish I'll ce if you like? I think your suggestion is an excellent way to summarise the link between the two articles and the wider context. Particularly, as in the 19th century, the military orders were the last active legacy of the Crusades to expire. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to jump in with edits/comments at any time, particularly when I change things from British English (as I surely will). I thought I'd do a brief, introductory section on the Hospitallers/Templars in the 1095–1291 chapter, with more detail in the Crusader movement section. The structure I put in is just a placeholder--the final should probably reflect the same in the main "movement" article. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephen Teglatius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serenissima.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crusader.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were bold, you were reverted ... and you reverted again. This is edit warring behaviour. I expect you to self-revert and start a discussion at WP:RFD, the proper venue for controversial changes to longstanding redirects. Srnec (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I propose that we remove or hide our exchange in the section commentary of the RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me @Dominic Mayers, just take it out. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:51, 17 November 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) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you were trying to fix with this edit? I don't think it had its intended purpose. Legoktm (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot @Legoktm. I was attempting to fix the archiving on Historiography of the Crusades that didn't appear to be active and add the index banner. As I don't know how the bot works or the template I copied from another page but forgot to change the references to that page afterwards. I have tried to fix, but if you can correct my edits I would be more than happy. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edit should have fixed it. I also created the index page, the bot will start generating it in its run tomorrow. Legoktm (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Legoktm, much appreciated. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... I tidied a citation to the ODNB in Crusades to use the ODNB template, however the original editor (@Dr. Grampinator) quite rightly pointed out that this says that the article is behind a paywall, which it isn't so the eroneous message might put off readers following the link. My changes are below

^[1]

• Murray, Alan V. (2009). "Participants in the third crusade". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/98218. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)

Would be useful to fix the template but it is not something I have experience of, all advice welcome. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to fix the template. Just read the documentation and add the right parameter.

* Murray, Alan V. (2009). "Participants in the third crusade". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/98218.

It looks like you can just add |freearticle=y to your existing cite. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Jmcgnh, for next time where do I find the documentation? I did search, but failed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being so slow to get back to you. Templates - the things you use by surrounding them with doubled curly braces - have their own namespace on Wikipedia. So the documentation for {{cite news}} lives at Template:cite news/doc, but by convention appears on its superpage Template:cite news. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crusading movement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Crusading movement you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Crusading movement for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Crusading movement you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Crusading movement for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Crusading movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @RandomCanadian, I'll hold off now, appreciate the gentle notice. I have raised this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Crusading_movement as well. You feedback would be welcome. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusading movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gregory VI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Norfolkbigfish, happy to continue working with you on the article by sending over my ideas by means of the talk page, which you can then take or leave as you wish. is that OK? Amitchell125 (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Amitchell125, that would be gratefully received. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start on the talk page. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Amitchell125, I agreed with all but two, one of which I redrafted to address the challenge. The Spansih Civil War one It did disagree on, but I am happy to debate the point. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a week's holiday tomorrow, but will look at your Crusading Movement again on my return. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another section (on redundant text) added. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Norwich City F.C./archive1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Norfolkbigfish. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Crusading movement at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Dhtwiki (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Dhtwiki, good work much appreciated. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I left a clarify template here. I couldn't determine what "the clerical twentieth" referred to. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dhtwiki, added the explanation that is effectively a 5% tax on the income of the church. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made some tweaks. I was wondering whether the tax was a new one imposed at that time, or revenue from an already existing tax was diverted. The present wording implies the latter. I had googled the term "clerical twentieth" and came up with nothing. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dhtwiki, I only got 10 myself when looking to respond to your query. Best was https://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/pdf/10.1484/J.RM.2.305599 which has To pay for this enormous undertaking, the Council agreed that all clergy should be asked to give a twentieth of their ecclesiastical income for three years, with the exception of some religious and those going in person and cites this to Elizabeth Siberry, Criticisms of Crusading 1095-1274, Oxford, 1985,np. 129. I note there is a duplicate use of the work tax in the sentence, I'll delete. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a new tax especially for the occasion, I would consider saying "Imposed" rather than just "Used", as though an exiting tax's funds were being diverted. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm @Dhtwiki, I think it is then a question of timing, Ugolino wasn't yet Pope, so it wasn't his tax - it was Innocent's. But reading the source as he used the funds but I agree wholeheartedly that the wording is open to interpretation. Any good ideas? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It now sounds as though it was an already-established tax and that the present wording is fine. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crusading movement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Godtres -- Godtres (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Crusading movement you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Crusading movement and Talk:Crusading movement/GA3 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Godtres -- Godtres (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Crusading movement you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crusading movement for comments about the article, and Talk:Crusading movement/GA3 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Godtres -- Godtres (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff on getting the article through! I'll take a look at the map issue in First Crusade. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is one of the consequences of that image review on Crusading movement: this image now a featured picture. I'd imagine it's going to default to Council of Clermont as the page linked when it runs on POTD, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 08:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know @Adam Cuerden, that link is probably the most appropriate anyway :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did manage to work in a link to it, though Template:POTD/2025-11-17 Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 19:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks @Adam Cuerden, I'll look out for that - it is some lead time. You really do improve the images round here, it looks much cleaner. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

930th anniversary of the event. Seemed appropriate to go for the roundish number, but I wasn't waiting for 950 or 1000. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 11:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noted this has been pending for quite a long time and thought I could probably bring the ACR to a conclusion. Assuming no big time problem gets in the way and no intervening review, I intend to do the third review before the end of this month. The article has been reviewed by two of the best reviewers and contributors on Wikipedia so I would expect not to have many more comments. In addition to online sources, I have three of the books. Given the prior reviews and source review, I doubt I will need to consult them, however. Donner60 (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Donner60, all feedback is welcome. I just want to get it into as good a state as possible. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crusading movement has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am informing you that the article was delisted during the reassessment process (the reasons are listed here [8]). I suggest you should as soon as possible clean the article from close paraphrasing and plagiarism. Please also consider reviewing other articles that you previously nominated, such as House of Plantagenet if you think they may violate copyright, because copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues Borsoka (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to apologize because I know it must seem as though I completely bailed on you at the Admin noticeboard. I was out of town at a conference with only my phone and no time, then took advantage of seeing some old friends and still no time for WP at all. Badly timed I know, but if I can help in any way at all, let me know. I will. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Jenhawk777, much appreciated. Quiet atm, but will ping you if that changes. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]