Talk:Castle

Castel del Monte

The article currently claims

"Frederick II's Castel del Monte in Puglia has no keep at all: built on high ground, it is an octagonal structure with eight polygonal corner towers."

in the middle of a discussion about the decreasing importance of the keep v. the curtain walls. Problem is... if there is no interior structure and the outer walls are not enclosing a large space (like a small village), there are no curtain walls and you're just talking about the keep (or a fort, if there's no living space appended to the walls.) Either way, I don't think the castle functions the way they wish it did. Curious if I (and the Castel del Monte article) are just missing something about the innovation going on in its design, though. -LlywelynII (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Encei... Curtain Walls

Is there a reason we're using an obscure French term for this section? The linked pages (which are separate and indicate they are not synonyms) say that enceintes are for city walls and ecclesiastical structures and more properly describe the empty space, while curtain walls are for castles and describe... y'know... walls. Presumably this article is about the latter. -LlywelynII (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary also has the English meaning of enceinte only embracing "pregnant." The French use is "enclosure," but not the fence or wall itself. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Enceinte is not an obscure term at all. Its a technical word widely used in the english castle literature. It means enclosure, but most commentators have for decades used "enceinte". It can be used to distiguish certain kinds of castles: castles of enceinte, means castles with an enclosing wall, rather than a peel tower or something. In short, the linked pages are wrong. CJ DUB (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed external link to my website Can I appeal the removal?

Hi,

Yeah, so I had some 'external links' to my website, British Castle, http://www.britishcastle.co.uk, removed from your wiki castle pages. I hoped to add more as I have been pleased with the traffic generated by some other links I've had on wiki castle pages. However, the links were recently removed. Someone did alert me to argue my case at the time but I didn't know how to. So here I am now.

I understand my sites does show ads but then so do quite a few of the external links on other wiki pages. And the decision to remove is also confusing since I have on other external links on wiki pages which have happily served your visitors for maybe a year now; http://www.craigmillarcastle.com, http://www.holyroodhouse.com and http://www.pendenniscastle.com. Over the course of time, I developed the British Castle website and to avoid duplicating content I've since redirected individual castle sites to the (for want of a better word) meta site. Have these links been kept because of the pertinent domain names? I wonder? But then britishcastle.co.uk should have been okay. IMO, there is some quite good and useful content on the site, eg., official website of each castle, easy to use google maps, great stock photos, a useful search facility, eg., what king/castle association can be found and, of course, I must mention some great content from a number of authors from around the world (which I did pay at least UK minimum wage).

Finally, in support of my case, I like to think I apply a good ethical standard to my websites. An example of this, I have always included a link back to Wiki whenever I've been unable to source content commercially, eg., at http://www.britishcastle.co.uk/index.php?pageId=CraigmillarCastle_Surrender (from the photo) or a better example at http://britishcastle.co.uk/index.php?&pageId=GuildfordCastle_theCastle. Indeed, there are some 20 pages and 40 individual links to wikipedia.org pages from the British Castle website.

I'd be pleased to hear your considerations.

Regards, Mike Flynn forthside.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthside (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

edited ( and now signed Forthside (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC) )

No one replied yet so I thought it'd be okay to add a link here for British Castles but probably not for each individual castle (though I'd still like to). - (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by a stupid nasty prejudiced nationalistic pro-Spanish, anti-Italian ....editor

It has taken me an hour and 15 minutes to check out every one of this person's edits to see if they needed deletion, or had already been spotted and deleted. My advice is, check every single edit by any nameless editor and be suspicious of it. Not every edit by this person was actually vandalistic. But with total egocentricity, he/she failed to comprehend the paragraphs into which he/she stuffed detailed material on specific Spanish castles, as if there wasn't enough mention of Spanish castles in the article already. Changing the location of the pics in Italy to Spain, and deleting a list of famous Florentine Renaissance architects really got up my nose. I don't want to have to add this article to the long list that I watch already. Could someone please be diligent about watching this problem? Amandajm (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been a lot of edits to this article recently by 68.173.91.50. I've noticed that the editor has removed information in the article relating to Italy [1], [2], [3], [4] [5], for no apparent reason (the editor never uses an edit summary). Strangely, the editor also altered the captions for the images File:Castel del monte3.jpg ([6] [7]), and File:Fortezza di Sarzana.jpg ([8]) claiming they are in Spain and not Italy. BarretBonden (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the captions back to their original wording but I have left the other edits as they are. BarretBonden (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I know "assume good faith" and everything, but I think all their edits should be reverted. The file info said the castles are in Italy, the person who uploaded the images is also the one who took them and I trust them to know where they were. If those IP edits were wrong, I wouldn't hold out much hope that the other edits are factually accurate. Nev1 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I just checked out all the edits of this person. It is someone pushing a particular barrow. They are deleting references to other places and shoving in refernces to Spain, rightly or wrongly. The same problem has occurred with an un-named editor on the Gothis architecture page and elsewher. I also recommend that ALL their edits be examined and probably deleted. Unfortunately it's too late to do a roll-back, because there have been too many edits since.

Re sizing of pics. I have just reduced some of them. If one is not cautious with oversizing, then an editor who knows the rules backwards will come along and reduce the whole lot to thumbnails. (sigh!)

This article is really good. it needs some more references, and then it needs to be promoted. Obviously the current B assessment doesn't do it justice. - Amandajm (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Then I looked again and found the vandalism. Amandajm (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Message for Nev1 and BarretBonden

OK, you guys discussed it, on the 12th of April, but you didn't do it. You two, and whoever else watches this page (I'm not one of them) saw the inserted errors, saw the numerous deletions, permitted a list of important architects to be simply deleted by someone that you BB, then messaged over the lack of edit summaries. What you got back was a smug message that said "Thanks for allowing me to make changes, my buddy!"

The bottom line is that you discussed this and did nothing about it. There were subsequent edits, including your caption reversals BB, and these pushed the vandalism into obscurity, until a knowledgeable editor queried the statement that castles in Europe were based on those of the Goths (with the word (Gothic) in parenthesis).

No change as important to the meaning of the article as changing Romans to Goths can possible be made without discussion unless it is made by a major contributor to the article that you really trust. (and certainly not without an edit summary). But you editors permitted this to happen.

I am disgusted at the parasitical and loathsome behaviour of a person who takes pleasure in undermining and destroying what others have done. But I also feel pretty cross with you who saw what was happening and didn't take the appropriate steps at a point when the changes could be reversed easily. If I hadn't decided, out of the blue, to check the castles article, then every reference to Italy would still be missing, and the bit of sheer stupidity would still be in the introduction for every kid to put in their homework. - Amandajm (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We have other things to do, I have an FAC and an FLC to look after at the moment, and as they're both higher quality articles they take precedent. So sometimes, things slip through the net. In fact, one of the things I was doing in the meantime was looking for books to help improve this article after you highlighted that it's not in such a bad state. Before then I'd only really glanced at it, but it's got potential and the structure seems sensible. Are you interested in helping to add references? Nev1 (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To comment on what you have written here: the article needed rollback or reverting long before I looked at it!

About higher quality article taking precedence, my priority is generic artcles. The way I see it, an encylcopedia, to be effective, needs a good article on "Castle" more than it needs a good article on "Dover Castle". The latter is the cream on the cake. However, they are very much easier to do. I like tidying up the articles on specific cathedrals.

The reason that I am here is that I rewrote the article on Gothic architecture. As an editor has recently pointed out, it is severely lacking in details about any building form except major churches. However, as the article is very long, there is no room to deal with all the building types and a series of main articles need to be linked to it, preferably with a short paragraph about each major type of building, eg Castles, Town Halls etc.

So I lifted some pertinenet material from this article and editted it and attempted to put it into Gothic architecture. At this point my blanky server dropped me out and lost the lot, which happens frequently. It often takes me three or four tries to save something, which is frustrating and time consuming.

I came and checked this article out and it looked basically good, and then I saw the Goth bit in the intro and started looking further. .... I can't help wondering how many articles that individual has undermined.

Castles is not my particular subject so I'm glad that you are working on this one. I'll proceed by looking to see what has been done and trying to fill the gaps in other aspects relating to the Gothic.

This article, as it must, talks about form and function, not style. The latter is an aspect of much less importannce where a castle is concerned. However, style is reflected in castles to a degree, and some mention of the change from round Norman/Romanesque arches to the more functinal and decorative pointed ones might be possible. If interiors are discussed, then features like ribbed vaulting and clustered columns of the Gothic period become significant.

One thing this article lacks is dates. There are many instances where a broad time-frame needs to be given. One sentence containing important info starts "Early on...." What does this mean? 800 AD or 1000 AD or earlier. etc. Dates within the picture captions are a big help to give the reader the general concept of the development.

See ya round! - Amandajm (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Any help would be gratefully received. If you keep losing what you're writing because of your server, it might be worth either using firefox (which retains what I write even if I navigate away from the page I'm working on) or making changed in something like Word and the copying across the changes. The second option is more arduous, but is worthwhile for long edits.

I agree it's more important to get this article to GA (for example) than it was to get Warwick Castle to FA, but it's a matter of time, resources, and motivation. This discussion about core topics at WT:FAC is worth a read. I've also found that working on satellite articles gives a greater understanding of the overall subject, and I think it's a good primer for tackling the "big one". However, the problem is that the majority of sources I have are Anglo-centric, or at least concentrate heavily on Britain. To avoid making the article unbalanced, I'll be editing slowly and will have to look for more sources down the local library. This will probably take several months to sort out properly. Nev1 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(Update) The IP edit has returned and is again inserting POV. Part of the problem before is that the article was almost entirely unreferenced so it was difficult to know what was correct. This time, referenced material was removed. I have warned the user, and if they persist they will be blocked. The IP address has changed slightly so if the editor continues to jump between IPs it may become necessary to protect the article to prevent further vandalism. Hopefully it won't come to that. Nev1 (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical context

This article is lacking a proper historical context. For starters, fortified palaces and residences for monarchs is as old as civilization itself.If you look at Egypt, Babylon, Persia and elsewhere you will find the origin of this concept. Architecturally, the form of the modern castle also is based on far more ancient origins in ancient cultures. Crenelations, towers, walls, flags and all the trappings of a modern castle can be found in ancient Persia, Babylon, Egypt and elsewhere from 2,000 years prior to the first castle in Europe.

And, the introduction of this style of architecture and the idea of a fortified royal residence can be traced back to Islamic Spain. The oldest fortress in Europe is Gormaz Castle, which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gormaz_Castle. And this style of architecture was used throughout Islamic Spain for fortresses and royal residences from the 8th century onwards. But this tradition itself is based on older roots in the waning Sassanid Persian dynasties which collapsed in the 8th century. They have left many castles and fortresses that presage those of Muslim Spain all over Eastern Europe into Central Asia. Some examples are Castle Aflak in Persia as well as Djerbent in Russia. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derbent. Castle Aflak: http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/falak

This is not to mention the ancient fortresses and fortified palaces of places like Egypt, which were ritually, symbolically and politically important and elevated within the art and culture of ancient Egypt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buhen Big-dynamo (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Is anybody getting sick of the guy reverting the article and putting in his pictures of Portugese castles that don't contribute to the context of the article subheadings? Somebody please report him for the 3RR. There is a long history of people putting redundant or irrelevant images on this article, justifying with "This picture represents ..... so its important."CJ DUB (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. William Avery (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. For one thing, there is hardly any mention of portuguese castles and other European countries that have made significant contributions to castle building and design. I believe that you should understand the motives behind these actions before you decide to condemn him/her. I think that your reasons stem from long-held beliefs that only castles worthy of historical significance should be those from France, Enlgand, Spain, and Germany. Keep in mind that Europe does not entail ONLY those aforementioned nations. There are far more countries in Europe than those, you know. This is an American way of discriminatory thinking, and it's wrong.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

you shouldn't assume anything about the nationality/citizenship of other editors. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Seb, I can understand why you say that. But understand that the ones responsible for most of the preconceived assumptions about people are americans. Americans are responsible for assuming things about Spaniards and other southern europeans that we all know is false. This is the very reason why I'm voicing my opinion on this discussion page. Therefore, based on my experiences with americans, I have no choice but to assume that the ones replying to me in a discriminatory way are americans.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know Seb is the only editor in this discussion who is American. In my experience, the majority of English language sources on castles are related to English castles; while castles in other countries are mentioned, usually France, Germany, and the Holy Land, there is a natural bias because most of the information scholars will be working from (for example original records and site reports from excavations) will be in the native language so it's simpler for English scholars to focus on English castles. That's not to say that the English have claimed castle building as their own, only that they usually focus on the subject without much context. American bias has nothing to do with this.

Because of the problems (as I see them anyway, perhaps I just haven't read enough) with the sources, the article on castles might seem narrow. The only way to change this is to suggest new sources. Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nev1, I must heavily disagree with you about Seb being the only american editor here. By the way the other editors are describing themselves and trying to defend something that isn't true, I have to bend toward the belief that most if not all the editors here are american. And american bias has alot to do with this otherwise we wouldn't be discussing the unfairness behind it. American writers have a habit of ignoring other contributions and thinking ethnocentrically that their way is the only way of viewing things.

As for new sources, I have already provided 2 that are reliable and justified. I really don't understand the need for new sources. Again, this is an american bias that comes from fear of other cultures (other than the american culture) that may have contributed to the world. And it sees this as some threat. But, if that's what it takes, I'll provide more, no problem.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ingrid4hubby, nice diatribe. There are plenty of pages on specific portuguese castles. On this article there is plenty of information on international castles including europe and even beyond. we cannot give examples for every country and put a pic from every country. Know why that is? THIS PAGE IS NOT ABOUT CASTLES ALL OVER THE WORLD; it is about the general history and development. There are MANY links at the bottom of the page to other topics. You want a page on portuguese castles, go make one. cya CJ DUB (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey CJ DUB, nice attempt at nothing. You say that this article isn't about castles all over the world. But, why are there referneces of castles about japan? DUHHH! And typing in bold face WILL NOT INTIMIDATE ME OR ANYONE. And the portuguese have contributed to the development of castle building for hundres of years. If you don't know this, then look it up. It looks like we got another american hater, folks!

You don't like this article? Then go someplace else.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination is essential in this matter - the need to discriminate between images that illustrate the article text and those which do not. William Avery (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

William Avery, discrimination and racism IS NOT tolerated in wikipedia, nor do we support racists or haters. Refer to the terms of service on wiki pages.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's try and keep this discussion civilised rather than attacking each other or throwing about words like "racist". It does no one any credit and isn't constructive. You have misunderstood what William Avery meant by "discriminate". Images are not being removed because they are of Portuguese castles, but because the images add nothing to the article or are not of a high enough quality. Nev1 (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My original intention was to keep this discussion civilized. I'm not attacking anyone with racist labels. If William Avery meant to say that the images didn't represent the article, then I understand, no problem. Then I read him wrong.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Therefore, based on my experiences with americans, I have no choice but to assume that the ones replying to me in a discriminatory way are americans. 66.108.40.200"

^^^Can someone please ban this person. Its embarassing to have someone like this on wikipedia, and doubtless embarassing to other "southern europeans" What's with the chip on the shoulder? The damn article has Spanish, Italian and even a Mexican castle. The point of the page is not to inform about every single castle. I'm sorry if you missed that. By the way your comments on the White Americans article are truly priceless: african americans= anglos saxons, YES OF COURSE!!CJ DUB (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deb, can you please block CJ DUB for breaking wiki rules about picking fights with others? It's embarrassing to have this troublemaker start personal attacks for no reason, especially when he has trouble spelling. The point to this page is to involve all who have contributed to castle-building. And it looks like he's got some sick obsession for me - he follows all my edits everywhere. He obviously is not as smart as the rest of us so he shouldn't be allowed to comment at all. Deb, we strongly urge you to block this "man". Thank you.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

lol. You're the one starting fights with everybody. This page had some very thoughful additions and comments before you arrived with your "Americans are this...", "Americans are that" "YOU MUST BE AMERICAN" ignorant comments. They have no place in wikipedia or any other polite discourse. Please find me a wiki rule I've broken? You've broken many on this page, and I'm simply telling you. Follow your edits everywhere? That's a good one. I just wanted to see how many accounts you have. CJ DUB (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Deb, the user, CJ DUB, has made direct and personal attacks upon me, thus breaking wiki rules. As you suggested days ago, this user must be blocked from making any further comments. He called me ignorant and has insulted the wiki editors for no reason whatsoever. He's also mocked the wiki editors, implying that the editors are not brave enough to stand up to him, that he gets away with insulting us.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Castles

Hi, I'd like to add updated info about Spanish castles that in the past you had deleted, which didn't make any sense. For example, a particular castle in Spain is called, 'King Charles V's Castle'. On your article, you continue to have the old and unused name of the castle called, 'Alcázar of Segovia'. Everyone in Spain has called and knows this castle by, 'King Charles V's Castle', for 500 years, not 'Alcazar of Segovia'. I'd appreciate the name change. Spaniards identify this castle by 'King Charles V Castle'. I should know because I'm half Spaniard. Be a bit more understanding so all can enjoy our contributions to the article and it doesn't become one-sided. There's no need for being discriminatory. Ingrid4hubby (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What independent reliable source can we verify the name of the castle with? —C.Fred (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have 2 references that refer to the castle as the Royal Place or Castle of Charles V. They are:

http://www.spain.info/TourSpain/Arte+y+Cultura/Monumentos/T/IW/0/Castillo+de+Carlos+V+(Hondarribia)?Language=en and http://www.castles.org/castles/Europe/Western_Europe/Spain/Madrid%20Royal%20Palace/index.htm 66.108.40.200 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you bring it up at the talkpage for Alcázar of Segovia. That article's name should be changed first (if everyone agrees), then we can have it here, for uniformity. Also consider that it does not matter what the common name in Spanish is; since this is the English wikipedia, it matters what the English-speaking world considers the most "common" name/designation. English google: Alcázar of Segovia, 439,000 hits. King Charles V's castle: 0 hits. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should the Alcázar of Segovia article's name be changed first? That article doesn't pertain to you or this page whatsoever. Don't worry about other articles, just worry about this one. Who are you? And IT DOES matter what the common name is because it's what people in Spain refer to the castle as. You're not a Spaniard, you're american. So what matters is what Spaniards define their world. Don't define it for them. You're in no position to.

And, why would you say that what matters is what the English-speaking world believes? What about other people? Don't other people have a voice too? The english-speaking world doesn't control the world nor is it the only voice in the world. Seriously, you sound very biased. And by suggesting that the only voice that matters - regardless of other people's opinion - is the english-speaking world tells us that you're discriminatory. Everyone sees that. I strongly think you should stop thinking for other people and respect other peoples and their beliefs. I believe this is why there's so much one-sidedness and discrimination in the world. It comes from the belief that just because you're in a powerful position today that you have the authority to pre-define other people's beliefs. America isn't going to last forever, you know. I don't mean to come off like this, I'm just offering an example so that you and others don't fall into the trap of discriminating without knowing the facts. If you can understand this, then that's a good thing.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If we're so out of touch, it is a bit strange that Spanish wikipedia also calls it Alcázar de Segovia, isn't it? Deb (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be strange to you since you're american and you're not a Spaniard. If you were a Spaniard living in Spain, you would understand the Spaniard world. But obviously you're not and you don't. You're an american looking at the world through american eyes. The castle has 2 names: Alcázar de Segovia and Castle of Charles V or Royal Palace. The former name was in effect when the muslims were in Spain. But after the Christians conquered Spain, the Spaniards has since referred to the caste by the latter names. There's more to the world than how you're looking at it. Wikipedia is about describing the world on people's terms, not on american's terms. Wikipedia is made up of different peoples and cultures. It's not and should not be defined by an elite group of americans. It's a global market place now and america has a voice, but small voice now in relation to the other voices in the world. You sound like the guy above. And I'm saying this with all due respect, no offensive given. I suggest that you open your eyes and not be biased. I'm reacting to this type of thinking because it has caused much trouble in the world and should be prevented so that others can work in unison.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You're making as much sense as saying the article "Spain" should be renamed "España" and "Germany" should be "Deutschland". Please go to the Spanish wikipedia and argue that the article "Estados Unidos" must be changed to "United States." (...and by the way, just from a quick check, it seems to me that Deb is more British-Welsh, but I might be wrong... and she doesn't insist on "Cymru," either...) Seb az86556 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And you make as much sense as a kindergartener. What are you talking about? I don't know what you're talking about from your erroneous analogies. You come across as a hater or vandalizer. Your tone is insulting. And what or who is cymru? Again, you don't know what you're talking about and you come of as a hater.

You got issues of hate against Spaniards for some reason. If you don't like the people and culture of Spain, then don't comment on the article. You got hate issues that need to be addressed. We can't help you since we're not a psych clinic that helps those who have been rejected by female Spaniards.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And, having looked at the reference quoted above, I think we may be talking about two differnt castles, one in Segovia and one in Fuenterrabia. Deb (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm talkaing about the castle that Spaniards have referred to for the last 500 years as the Royal Palace or Castle of Charles V. The castle's old name, Alcázar de Segovia, is seriously outdated. Therefore, the article must update this info.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the references you cite above refer to the castle we are talking about. Deb (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Deb, it looks like you're not seeing what we're seeing. Go back to the links or google it. I'll provide you with more links later.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure she did just that, and I am also fairly certain she is literate. Please refrain from

a) accusing people of racsim

b) labeling people as illiterate

c) accusing people of vandalism

d) calling people "kindergartener"

f) referring to people as being mentally ill or retarded

You should instead

a) read WP:CIVIL

b) read WP:NPA

c) be aware that not everyone's patience concerning a breach of said policies is endless. Take that as your first informal warning.

d) and learn what Cymru means

Thank you. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think Deb checked, otherwise she would have admitted it. And I've never questioned her literacy. You're bringing that up out of nowhere which tells me that you're possibly starting some kind of altercation. If this is your motive, then refain from doing so. And when you tell me to refrain from calling people certain things, tell the man who disrespected me FIRST to do the same. Fair is fair.

Tell that man who disrespected me FIRST to read the wiki policies. And at the same time, tell me to read the wiki policies also. This way, everyone is on a level playing field. As far as I see it, Seb, the person whom you suggest I "disrespected", insutled me first. Go back and read the discussion between us so you can get a better handle of what went on. I had no choice but to defend myself and call him a 'kindergartener'. What I've been brought up to understand is when someone insults you first, you got every right to defend yourself.

If you can tell me what cymru means, I'll understand it. Otherwise, it's not important. You're welcome.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cymru is the Welsh name for Wales. The point is that on the English wikipedia, where mos people speak English and English names are prevalent, the article is called Wales rather than Cymru.

And I would just like to reiterate to everyone on this page to make no further personal attacks or they risk being blocked. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Nev1, it's a good idea to warn everyone about personal attacks. Please let everyone know not to make personal attacks upon me or others, direct or subtle, even when I'm trying to work together with everyone. And to add to this, I want to further repeat that if anyone here gets blocked, it's because of your own doing. So, let's work together and not fight.

69.86.162.170 (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No-one discriminated against you. You were the one who started this senseless rant, lashing out at people for no reason whatsoever, making presumptuous accusations that have no basis in reality. As an echo, you cannot expect anyone to pay much attention to you, at least not before you refrain from breaching WP:CIVIL even one more time. If you have some personal agenda and need to blow off steam, look for an appropriate forum (see WP:FORUM). Your behavior is completely unacceptable by any means and standards. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Nev1, it looks like Seb has ignored your warning about personal attacks. What's wrong with you, Seb? Didn't you read Nev1's warning? Why would you call what you think I started a "senseless rant" when it's not a rant, and by you saying senseless, you're calling me ignorant? We're warning you... stop initiating a fight in this discussion or you will be blocked. Stop instigating that I'm lashing out at people when we know it's not true. You're a real troublemaker with some sick mental issues. Your behavior on this forum is not acceptable and won't be tolerated. If you don't like the discussion, then go to another forum and spill your bias there. STOP BOTHERING US FOR THE LAST TIME. Leave US alone or you will be blocked!!!

69.86.162.170 (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous user above has used at least three different IP addresses and two different registered usernames in recent days. If this continues, I fear that banning is inevitable. Deb (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deb, that would be me. But I now have signed in with my username. I didn't know before that I was not logging in. But you shouldn't threaten people with banning them if they didn't know about signing in. That's not reasonable. First, tell them about their errors. If they continue, then I understand that threatening to ban them is justified. You just got to be reasonable with people - that's the best way of avoiding problems with people and at the same time, you're helping them too. Hope this helps.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you now understand. But I did place a warning about this on your talk page before your last few contributions. Please try not to let it happen again, as other users will not always be ready to assume good faith in such cases. Deb (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deb, you're quite welcome. Also, I noticed that we have a troublemaker making personal attacks, thus breaking wiki rules about insulting others. CJ DUB is the person making rude comments. Please refer to the above where he posted something in bold face - the timestamp of his offensive post is: 23:33, 17 August 2009. I greatly urge that you block him. We don't need offensive people like that insulting intelligent people here. Thank you!

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection

The current edit war over images and names of individual castles is unacceptable. I have fully protected the article for three days to facilitate discussion on this page. Keep it civil and do not make peronal attacks or the person responsible will be blocked. If you bring sources with you, and reason your arguments maybe this page can be improved. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

CJ DUB Continues To Insult Wiki Editors & Users

The user, CJ DUB, has made direct and personal attacks upon all of us, thus breaking wiki rules. He seems like a troll. As you suggested days ago, this user must be blocked from making any further comments on this page. He called me ignorant and has also mocked the wiki editors. He clearly has issues with people. Ingrid4hubby (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)