User talk:Almoustine

From Rodovid Engine

Hello Everyone, In order to avoid fragmenting discussions you can ask me questions here and I will answer back on this page son be sure to bookmark it and check it if you have a question. Almoustine 17:45, 25 May 2008 (EEST)

[edit] Thank you from Almoustine

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your work on helping me to clean up the duplicate records for Ancient Persia. Duplicate records are such a pest, but the very fact that we are committed to taking the time to do it is what differentiates this database from all the others. BTW... I am getting a strange error whenever I try to log in to rodovid.org. Maybe you can help me. Have you ever seen this error before? Do I need to refer it to Baya?

Warning: fopen(/usr/home/rodovid/www/serialized/messages-rd_en-wiki_) [function.fopen]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /usr/home/rodovid/www/includes/MessageCache.php on line 103

Almoustine 20:50, 24 May 2008 (EEST)

You're very welcome.

I started seeing the error yesterday; an email to Baya about it has not yet been replied to. I don't exactly know what the problem is, as it seems to only show on en. --Wikiacc (≈) 22:07, 24 May 2008 (EEST)

Another question with regard to duplicate lineages...Perhaps you could post the category and template for duplication marking on the main page discussion so that others entering information can mark duplicate entries when they encounter them. I am sure that I will be aiding you in your efforts to remove duplicate lineages as soon as I am finished entering my mother's generations and start on the Surname/Clan Reference guide. Almoustine 17:49, 25 May 2008 (EEST)

There already exists en:Help:Merging, which is linked from en:Help:Contents, and could be linked to from en:Talk:Main Page as well. --Wikiacc (≈) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (EEST)

[edit] Merging

Thanks for all the work you've been doing in tagging and merging duplicate records. A few pointers:

In most cases, it's advisable not to remove the relations with parents and children. Keeping those helps verify that the two people are in fact duplicates and helps identify further potential duplicates; they're deleted when the record is deleted, so there's no need to remove them by hand.
The newer record always gets the tag, stating that it is a duplicate of the older "previously added record". Even if the newer record has more information, the newer one is always deleted and the older one kept.

Thanks again. --Wikiacc (≈) 23:55, 27 May 2008 (EEST)

Another tip: When deleting records, it's helpful to mark in the summary "duplicate of [[Person:xxxx]]" for the purposes of logs and the Undelete system that admins have. --Wikiacc (≈) 00:13, 28 May 2008 (EEST)

[edit] Sandbox

[edit] POST A QUESTION OR COMMENT

[edit] About including Gods in the Family Tree

Please Don't! I understand that legendary and mythical kings may appear in lineages... that is fine as long as we realize they were once ordinary or extraordinary men and women and there is some form of documentation to substantiate the claim. However there are many times when I find a God listed instead of the ancestor (or lineage) who properly belongs there. Athough a Gods name can give us clues where to look to find the ancestor we are searching for, putting in the ultimate creator in that spot caps off the lineage and makes us think we have reached our ultimate end point for that lineage. Such a practice is unfair to the actual living human being who should be represented in that spot. I will unlink Gods if I find them. Also...for fundamentalists among us that believe the world is only 6000 years old...get a clue! Some DFA lineages go back to 3000 and 4000 bc. Please don't put God in there if he doesnt belong (I don't care what you call him/her) or else bewilling to accept the notion that God wasn't actually a god but an ordinary being who may or may not be correctly identified and may end up being deleted. If we want to document Pantheons let's have Baya create a separate database to hold that data and not mix it in with our family trees. Almoustine 21:32, 19 May 2008 (EEST)

You should move this discussion to the main page´s discussion or to the help page, because it's a very important topic to resolve in the Rodovid´s community. regards--R0MAN0 21:47, 19 May 2008 (EEST)

[edit] Wessex vs. Atheling

Hi, I see that you have reverted some of my changes to various Kings of Wessex. I think "Wessex" is more appropriate given that they are members of the House of Wessex, while "Atheling" is merely an Anglo-Saxon term for someone with royal blood, but was not used as an actual name until much later. Can we dialog about this before we get into an edit war? Thanks! Stephen Carlson 07:11, 13 March 2008 (EET)

Hello Steven, Sure, see my comments on your discussion page. Almoustine 17:18, 13 March 2008 (EET)

(moved from my talk page to here so we can keep the discussion in one place) Hello Steven, Sure, Here is the deal. Wessex is a location. There are many intermarrying lineages within Wessex and Kent. To designate them all as Wessex masks some important interrelationships between tribes. BTW... the name Atheling does mean noble but also is the proper clan designation for the decendents of Athelwulf who happened to be the clan chief from whom the kings of Wessex derive their identity. Athel means nobleone not necessarily "royalty". These kings and their children were actually identified by the surname appellate "The Atheling" in records other than English (I.e. France, Spain, and Italy). If we continue to call them Wessex then we will end up with all kinds of trouble when the lineages start to mix and when the children start to inherit from their mothers. There is a reason for Clan name... and it is not to describe locale but rather line of descent. Wessex may be a proper term to use for these kings in terms of history papers... but when it comes to genealogy it really needs to be a relevant clan name, in which case Atheling as the descendents of Athelwulf. Almoustine 17:18, 13 March 2008 (EET)

OK, I agree that Wessex is a location, and that Aetheling was used as a clan designation post-Aethelwulf (post-Egbert, really), so we agree on that point. I am mostly concerned about consistency, so I don't much care whether we go with Wessex or Aetheling, but it seems to me that we should have a consistent clan name for all the members of the House of Wessex, from Cerdic onwards, and Aetheling doesn't apply to anyone before Aethelwulf. Or is the point that you are making is that there are other descendants from the house of Wessex ruling other kingdoms, and to call them all Wessex masks the special line of descent from Aethelwulf that is ancestor to the later kings of England? If that's the case, I'm cool with changing them all to Atheling. Can we use "Ætheling" though, just to be more respectful of the Old English spelling? Stephen Carlson 20:42, 13 March 2008 (EET)

Hi Steven, you are correct in your assertion that the term Ætheling would not apply to anyone before Aethelwulf. However they were a patrilineage so any of his children (legitimate or awknowledged) would be Athelings. The Athelings passed from power but still hung around to blend with the Normans, Welsh ans Scots, so yes. Naming them Wessex masks the extent to which this family intermarried and passed down through the generations. I have been doing a great deal of investigation on the use of tribal designations among the various races in England just prior to the advent of the Athelings. I believe if we use those it would give a clearer picture of the genealogical relationships between the tribes that could help us push past some traditional barriers in researching further back.

Naming in England has always been problematic. This issue with the Atheling kings of Wessex and Kent, becomes problematic again after the Norman Invasion where the surname of the English Kings would "Knytling" (Descent from Canute) To "Norman" (descent from Rollo) until the advent of the Plantagenets through intermarriage with the Normans, Athough it stays relatively stable as Plantagenent until the ascent of the Welsh Tudors.

However with regard to Wessex/Atheling the Scots at the time of the Athelings were undergoing a radical change in social structure with the crossover inheritance patterns in the families descended from both the Norse/Irish (Patrilineages) and the Dalriada/Pictic (Matrilineages) so St. Margaret the Atheling is going to be a problem any suggestion?

I am good with Ætheling but am a pragmatist who recognizes that a more useful standard for the majority of the users in this space will be Atheling. Perhaps we can edit the Atheling Surname page to make note of the spelling! :) Almoustine 20:59, 13 March 2008 (EET)

[edit] Odin / Aulus Didius Gallus

Regarding Person:58467: I'm wondering what your sources are for the statement that they are one and the same. I'd be interested in finding more about this; also, that statement's likely to be challenged. --Wikiacc (≈) 01:27, 17 July 2008 (EEST)

Without getting into a whole essay. The traditional sources of this information come from the Poetic Edda, Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum, cross referenced against Roman Histories, letters, and occupational records. Various other ready references were used such as compiled lists of Odin's names, Lists of his supposed descendants, archaelogical records, artifacts, and modern DNA findings to establish migration patterns and racial mix of the European and Central Asian people during the centuries 400BC-100AD. Artifacts such as the Gundestrup Cauldron and other gravegoods and archaeological artifacts show a heavy influx of Gaelic/Celtic influence in the area of Denmark, Jutland, Saxony as well as Roman Occupation in the region during the time of the proposed historical Odin (some artifacts depict Odin astride an 8 legged horse, while others show him riding in a chariot (2 horses = 8 legs).

The evidence to support the widespread worship of Odin prior to 350-400AD does not exist. Most religious practices prior to this in the area of Scandinavia and northern Germany indicate a mix of Shamanistic and Fertility cults. It is evident then that the cult of Odin was not established until after approximately 100-300 AD and rapidly spread from the continent northward dragging Christianity in its wake. That Scandinavia was late to Christianize was due largely to the fact that Rome had fallen prior to the arrival of Christianity and without the Roman driving influence the movement of Christianity to Scandinavia was slow. Unlike Germania, Scandinavia was left to nourish and cultivate the Asartro (Cult of Odin) to its full flower before being called upon to deal with the Cult of Christ. The pantheon and mythological underpinnings such as the location of heaven and the status of the dead bear elements of Roman, Celtic (Druidic), and Persian (Mithraic) influence, while the myths and sagas themselves preserve a measure of historical accuracy in its mention of Locations and Races albeit in an allegorical manner suitable for meadhall entertainment. Peel off the layers of fiction and you are left with a surprisingly meaty kernal of historical context.

In the sagas Odin is referred to Eylúðr Darradr and elsewhere as Audun Langbarðr. Again in the Gylfaginning, Skáldskaparmál, and Grímnismál, he is called "Þriði (Thridi or the Third) which corresponds to the Roman Tertio/Tertius or Gallic "Tres" Welsh Tirs/Tyrs (meaning The Third) Which leads me to believe that the mythic Odin is actually a composite God whose nature reflects the combination of several historic men from the same Gens/Family. Again the three generation family of Person:58467 considered together provide the most likely candidates for a composite Odin. The family/gens name of the three men, Aula, means I see (Aulus I am seeing). And the Pronomen Caesius is a color used to describe individuals with Blue/Green Eyes. When considered together with the historical Odin Waelsing (Likely a descendant himself of Aulus) thrown into the mix, we end up with a pretty likely candidate for a common human progenitor.

Though, until the smoking gun is found, I will go ahead and post a notice on Person:58467 to alert fellow researchers that this is based on some new research that still has not yet been fully proven and is still largely circumstancial. (No smoking gun). Almoustine 12:44, 18 July 2008 (EEST)

[edit] Using The Title Event

Hello, I think that it will be more convenient and more interesting to use event "title" instead of put title of person into notes. With title event users can use special page Titleline (example: Special:Titleline/King of England) --Baya 10:27, 15 October 2008 (EEST)

Will Do :) Almoustine 15:40, 15 October 2008 (EEST)

Also, title value must be placed into event notes but not in place field. Cheese )) --Baya 09:20, 23 October 2008 (EEST)

Baya, I will admit I am a bit confused... can you post a couple of links... one where it is done incorrectly, and one where it is done correctly. That way I know what kind of changes to make... and where. :) Almoustine 16:38, 23 October 2008 (EEST)

[edit] The Kinship of Macbeth and William the Conquerer

A study of the Scottish clan genealogies following the death of Macbeth reveal that his legacy survived in the lineage of the Stewart kings. Because of this, Shakespeare and Elizabethan (Tudor) historians had a vested interest in rewriting history to legitimize the Plantagenet/Tudor claim at the expense of the Norman/Stewarts. One of the ways to achieve this without doing outright harm to William was to downplay or hide his Scottish ties while playing up the Atheling claim through Matilda. That William had direct ties to Scotland is evident when one looks carefully.

In 1052, Macbeth received a number of Norman exiles from England in his court, perhaps becoming the first king of Scots to introduce Norman feudalism to Scotland. A careful study of Scottish surnames compared with the Domesday registry reveal that a great number of Norman nobles that accompanied William the Conquerer had in fact already preceeded him in the prior generation and and were already firmly established in their lands and fiefdoms in Scotland, Northern Wales and Northumberland prior to 1066.

The research sources of Nigel Tranter contains accounts of Macbeth's trip to Rome to petition the Pope for reconciliation on behalf of the Celtic Orthodox Church. Macbeth traveled to Rome in the longships of his Norman kinsman [identified as his brother]. The kinsman in question would have been his brother-in-law Robert (the Devil) FitzRichard d'Everaux. Robert was the husband of Harelete (Arlette) and the father of William the Conquerer. William's mother Arlette (Harelete) was a daughter of Doda (Doada) MacMalcoluim by her first marriage to the French noble Fuhlburt Tonnerre d'Falaise who died in 1017. Doada returned to Scotland where she was married to Findlaech of Moray as his second "Norse" (Danelagh) wife. By Findlaech she had a son Maelbaetha MacFindlach (Macbeth) who inherited from his father the Pictish title Mormaer of Moray, and was elected by the Scottish nobles as regent and successor to his uncle Duncan MacMalcouim. Arlette's subsequent marriage to a minor noble engendered a son who accompanied the conquerer in 1066. Holingshead referrs to Robert de Burgh as Seigneur de Beart (Beathe/Baibd). This name is clearly Gaelic from the South of France; related surnames include Beaton, Burd, Monibhard, Tullibardin. It is interesting that this surname appears in the lineages of both King Macbeth (Macbeatha MacFindlach) and his Lady Grouch (Gruocj nicBoedhe MacCinaeda) which lends weight to the argument that Robert de Burgh was the grandson of Doda MacMalcolm the Princess of Scotland through the 2nd marriage of his mother Herleve d'Falaise.

As the son of the king's sister, William the Conquerer was recognized by a contingent of Scottish Nobles (with Pictish and Norman heritage) as a Tánaise Ríg with a legitimate claim to the throne of Scotland through the Pictish laws of Tanistry. In response to the ensuing political unrest in the British Isles resulting from Atheling support (for a paternal inheritance system) for the invasion of Scotland (with aims to restore Malcolm III to the throne of Scotland) William unites the Norman and French nobles to press his claim to for a united England and Scotland by invading England in 1066. (This by virtue of his wife Matilda's claim to the Atheling legacy, as well as his own to the throne of Scotland.) Almoustine 15:59, 15 October 2008 (EEST)

[edit] John Welles

Hi,

Do you know what evidence there is to suggest that, as stated at http://en.rodovid.org/wk/Person:50887,

birth: 1450, Welles, Lincolnshire, England death: 9 February 1499, Pasmers Place, Westminster, Middlesex, England

had a son. The only records I can find say he left only one daughter, Anne.

Thanks, Jamie. jvans@dsl.pipex.com

Hi Jamie, Yes. The information on that line came from stirnet.net a genealogy line from the UK. Since you mention a possible discrepancy I will double check sources. It may take a month or so in my spare time to double check. I would be interested in seeing your information on the daughter Anne if you could register an account on rodovid and add that information to the tree (including sources) that might help me in my verification process. Cheers....Almoustine 17:22, 20 October 2009 (EEST)

[edit] Hi

Hi Almoustine. I'm sorry for your strange blocking from a brazilian sysop. I guess that even some sysops still do not understand how rodovid works... --Christophe Tesson 21:13, 1 February 2010 (EET)

[edit] Person:27759 what a strange mix

Almoustine, you should'nt mix records like that. This corrupts Rodovid's credibility, this is a pity! --Christophe Tesson 19:51, 21 February 2010 (EET)

This is not a strange mix. This is a matter of finding biological persons whose records have been preserved through study of the Egyptian, Assyrian, Mesopotamian, Greek and Hebrew records. They all had different languages and recorded these persons in different dialects however the person existed. Since these cultures share a common origin the various mythologies match. I am merely reconciling the various records which is the entire reason that Rodovid exists. Almoustine 19:58, 21 February 2010 (EET)

I think you make a big mistake, this needs a public discussion between all administrators of Rodovid. Because of these kind of mixes, royal genealogical trees are unreadable in rodovid, mixed with that strange soup, where Adam and Eve lay beside Isis and Osiris.

I think we should all discuss on http://engine.rodovid.org/wk/Rd_Engine:Village_pump --Christophe Tesson 20:19, 21 February 2010 (EET)

I do not agree about deletion but we must provide some signs that this record is under discussion. I ask you all to find different examples of records which are problematic to understand how can we resolve this problem. --Igor 20:27, 21 February 2010 (EET) Put them in Engine.

Hi Igor! I do not agree with deletion too. This kind of work should be apart the rest of genealogical trees because this is a too particular point of view. Could we take a decision, just like Wikipédia admins do? Don't you think we need to talk about this in Engine instead of Almoustine's discussion page? --Christophe Tesson 20:47, 21 February 2010 (EET)

it's general problem - it's for engine --Igor 20:49, 21 February 2010 (EET)

I agree totally I do not at all believe in cluttering up Rodovid with make-believe people. But there is a difference between mythological/legendary and make-believe. Make believe are people who are purely fictional and never existed (like Frodo Baggins and Harry Potter). But if through careful study of several comparative mythologies and reconciliation to the archaeological record indicate that a mythological/legendary person probably did exist in a given time and place and had a relationship to a person who can be historically verified then they deserve to be included right?

As an anthropologist I am trained to identify relationship through the use of Genetics, comparative records analysis, linguistics, and archaological record. If I am able to identify in the historical and archaelogical record a real person (whatever their name) using these means and am thereby able to locate a lost common ancestor then I should show it right? And I should include each name that they are known by in the records of their various descendants right? Well there are many who would argue that the Hebrew/English name Adam is not any less a mythological appellation (name) than Zeus or Osirius. After all, he appears in only one book (OK.. three books if you count the Bible, Talmud, and Quran... or 4 books if you include the Pearl of Great Price)... my point is that if I can show through comparative research (of these mentioned books, and the clay tablets of Mesopotamia, and the new emerging pre-diluvian Egyptian records) that Adam did more than likely exist and was a political leader in the Mesopotamian region then I have done nothing but bolster the validity of the Genealogical Record.

If you read through the notes in the English version of this database you will see that I have explanation of the identities and why they are linked into the record. This is in no way different than saying that Willem von Normandie is = to William the Bastard or William the Conqueror. These individuals were called different things by different people with different languages and cultures. But if they can be identified as individuals who lived or quite possibly have lived then they deserve recognition in the historical and genealogical record. Understanding this is what allows us as Historians and Anthropologists to push back the boundaries of man's limited understanding. So unlike Bishop Assur's handling of the genealogy of Alfred the Great. I have no interest in showing that humans were descended from make believe entities such as Gods. But I do know enough about archeology and history to realize that if enough time goes by even men become gods in the shared racial memory.

Ordinarily I would not touch the surname designations in other databases, but the generations from Adam to Noah were already corrupted to the point that everyone appeared the same color when you viewed the genealogical tree and it was incredibly difficult to view the extended relationships which is the entire point of having clan designations. I did not change anyone who was not already there. I only changed the clan designations to show who were the descendants of Seth and who were the descendants of Cain as reconciled between the Egyptian/Assyrian/and Hebrew records. By the way, if our purpose is to avoid mythological record then I do believe that Dynasty 0-C and Dynasty 0-S is historically and genealogically more accurate than "Sons of God". Almoustine 20:55, 21 February 2010 (EET)

Please see my answer here. What is tne meaning of make-believe? --Christophe Tesson 21:18, 21 February 2010 (EET)

[edit] Project DFA

This is a pity. You're destroying a wonderfull idea: Rodovid. --Christophe Tesson 03:16, 14 March 2010 (EET)

Tesson... lets make it clear that you are the one forcing the separation by refusing to awknowledge the historical record in favor of a strictly Christian view. Pity! If separating the records is the option then I will stick with the historical record, thank you! And invite anyone out there looking for the truth of genealogical and historical accuracy to join me Almoustine 07:41, 14 March 2010 (EET)

[edit] Person:31412

Hi Almoustine, I contact you about Clodius and spécialy for his parents. According to all sources I've fond, Person:105801 his consider as legendary (see wikipeadia, french, english, spainish, needeland and portugees); have you got some documents more actual or sourced to show me who can explain what you delete all my work (all modification I did was souced and documented in each language) ? In the french wikipeadia the speak as Théodomir is the most possible parents of Clodius, why did you didn't tack him to his parent ? Amicaly --CharlesF 19:09, 31 May 2010 (EEST)

Hi Charles, If you take a look at the following tree you will see some of the reason for the confusion in the parentage of Clodius. A great many of the Roman records are historic but some of the Germanic and Frankish sources as well as those of the Christian churches of this period show a great amount of rising nationalism in the face of the decline of the Roman empire. The records that I have been consulting are largely in Latin and somewhat pieced together. I have left some of my sources as references on Clodius parents however some person has gone to great lengths to leave commentaries to discredit these sources. I have to reiterate that the confusion exists because the sources are so bad. The family was well known to many Roman writers of the 4th and 5th centuries by their Roman names. These include the writings of Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI whose last entry was approximately the same year as the birth of Clodius' father. This is a contemporary resource. I highly recommend we include the contemporary Roman authors in our search for the roots of the early Frankish kings. These writings indicate an early timeline for the myth of the Merovingian origins. I will go through and put in as many of the citations and sources as possible over the next couple of weeks. Almoustine 01:32, 1 June 2010 (EEST)

http://en.rodovid.org/wk/Special:Tree/31314

What do ou think about Théodomir as father of Clodius ? (Christian Settipani a DFA members is for this théroy) --CharlesF 03:26, 1 June 2010 (EEST)

This is one of those instances when I disagree with Christian. The best that can be said at this point is that there are equal evidences for and against Theodomir as father of Clodius. I am not yet ready to write off the existence of Pharamond the son of Priarios as the father of Clodius. However the claim that Sunno was the father of Clodius has been ruled out. Almoustine 04:15, 1 June 2010 (EEST)

Tanks for this reply. I'm waiting impatiently your sources (Because of as wirthen in all Wikipeadia, Pharamond is consider by historian as legendary). --CharlesF 07:35, 1 June 2010 (EEST)

The total citation is you had have to put was : ..., 420 Heribpolis Wirthenburgidiadmated regio redimitus Arottam Cimbrorum regis filiam poste in matromonium sibi ascivit. atque edx ea hosce successive liberos genuit: Clodionem Crinitum (qui patrem in honoribus secutus est), Francionem et Marcomirum. Pharamondus porro staturae existit médiocris ,...., Obit autem anno Domini 427

from of your source book Historia Luxemburgensis p2 (I'm not good in latin but I think the meaning is The posibility of existance of Paramond is weak. what your have to say on the fact:

You dealate mindful important information on a citation changing the meaning of this sources
You go against your source (If I don't do mistake on the translation) --CharlesF 09:34, 2 June 2010 (EEST)

porro -> far, hight ,.. so, .. more , more than ,...

staturae -> the personne, the body, the statue

existis -> to exist

médiocris -> weak--CharlesF 09:40, 2 June 2010 (EEST)

in Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI 10 I didn't find any mantion of Pharamond, can you say me witch paragraph, please --CharlesF 12:20, 2 June 2010 (EEST)

Normaly you answer in 20 min, and You didn't since 4 days on my message and you haed an Rodovid activity during this time, so you maybe don't whant to answer. So I consider you recognize you mistake and I correct the files. I'm still waiting your respnce on the last questions. --CharlesF 12:43, 4 June 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Person:31416 & Person:251662

Need sources Chlodeswinthe Verica (wife of Mérovech & daugther of Hildegonde de Cologne) : The "France Picturesque" mention this queen, but the accompanying biographical text is a mixture of the wedding of Prince frank SiGEM described by Sidonius Apollinaire and narration (by Gregory of Tours) at a wedding organized by the Franks Salian Clodion which are interrupted by the attack of Aetius. Neither document does not name the bride, one does not know from where the name Chlodeswinthe Verica. The wedding described by Sidonius Appolinaire are located in Lyon around 469 while those of Gregory of Tours are in the Cambrai region before 430 and nothing in the story of Gregory of Tours is no evidence that this is the wedding of Merovius. french wikipeadia Do you have sources ? Sincrly Yours --CharlesF 07:26, 3 June 2010 (EEST)

Of this source (La France Pitoresque) (with a warning icon) we can read : We know of Verica, the woman or Merovingus Merovech (eminent warrior), she was the daughter of a Burgundian king, and St Sidonius Apollinaris (431-487), bishop and writer of this early period, tells us what unit this head, however barbarous, had to fetch the bride. So :

Claudius was not Burgundian
Flavius Petronius Maximus was Roman --CharlesF 07:45, 3 June 2010 (EEST)

During this period there were a great many Romans who were Burgundians and Burgundians who were Romans. Remember that between 250 and 400 vast migrations were occuring from East to West, North to South, and Roman responses from West to East and South to North. I think it is impossible to distinquish "nationality" at this point in time since everyone except slave born and barbarians were technically Citizens of Rome and a great many of the "Kings and Dukes" of the Franks, Burgundians, Moesians, Britons and others were simply Rex/Dux of various localities within of Pax Romanum.Almoustine 22:08, 23 June 2010 (EEST)

I think it is imposible that a Roman Roman Emporor is mingled with a Bulgarian King (Not same culture, nat same "race" and "clan", nat same aera). Flavius Petronius Maximus was never established in Burgondy, he could pass in during the Garmany Campagne but not established.--CharlesF 05:17, 24 June 2010 (EEST)

Ordinarily I would agree with you however during the period preceeding and during the crisis of the 3rd century not all of the Roman Emperors were from Rome. Nor were they the same family or nationality. Most of them were soldiers from various parts of the empire. And not all of them lived in Rome. Flavious Petronius Maximus may not have been from Burgondy but he was heavily involved in the politics of the area. Including dynastic alliances through marriage and diplomacy. Regarding the role of the Romanians and other Eastern European in the Roman Empire they were a state of the empire and contributed their share of Generals, Soldiers, and Senatorial diplomats. It was the same Era, and the same empire. If the Vandals (a Eastern European people) can show up in Africa during the 400s then it should be no surprise at all that a Bulgarian king can be an ally of Rome.

Almoustine 06:53, 24 June 2010 (EEST)

Roman Emperors were

More than Sidonius Apollinaris was not a Généalogist or historian, he was a great Panegyric poet (French and English Wikipeadia sources)--CharlesF 07:52, 3 June 2010 (EEST)

He was also a great letter writer and did keep a journal. you may also want to check the following historical treatise The Cambridge Medieval History: The rise of the Saracens By John Bagnell Bury Almoustine 22:08, 23 June 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Person:111436

Dear Almoustine, I need informations on this person. You say he died at in 1086 and his chind born in 1105 technicely imposible in the XI°s. See you--CharlesF 10:27, 22 June 2010 (EEST)

Charles, I merely copied this genealogy from the internet. Personally I think this line may be inaccurate and will make a note of it because according to A general and heraldic dictionary of the peerages of England, Ireland, and By John Burke page 532. Robert deVaux remained in France when his father and brothers came to England with the conqueror. In that volume Hubert not mentioned as son of Robert deVaux. There are a great many of the genealogies on the internet that have this lineage but no source. Furthermore Stirnet does not trace any of the genealogy of deVaux to the companions of the Conquerer. The English lineage does not appear to extend further back than 1100. Since it is a Continental lineage, it may be best left to the French to help correct the record and restore the lineage. I know that any help in that regard would be valuable to Rodovid. Almoustine 22:01, 23 June 2010 (EEST)

I sow this person, but I don't have sources. Can you give me links to have more information about this lignage. Tanks--CharlesF 04:45, 24 June 2010 (EEST)

Nice book A general and heraldic dictionary of the peerages of England, Ireland, and By John Burke page 532. I'm on --CharlesF 04:55, 24 June 2010 (EEST)

I juste need source (or link) on the fact Hubert is the son of Robert. --CharlesF 05:05, 24 June 2010 (EEST)

I am not entirely sure he is. It is a common relationship on nearly all online genealogy trees but I have not yet found a verification either way. Perhaps we can go ahead and edit that line based on Burke. Since we have a source but the online trees that I have seen do not. I can help if you like. Almoustine 06:34, 24 June 2010 (EEST)

[edit] 2 fathers

Hi Almoustine, I need sourced.

All this person Have 2 fathers, but no mother. Can you say me why, please. Sincely Your's--CharlesF 11:05, 23 June 2010 (EEST)

Don't quite know what happened. The women in this line are marked as males. It is as simple as that. When I encounter these in Rodovid, I simply verify gender and make the change. I expect that to be the standard procedure for everyone. While you could have simply made the change as well as I, I have gone in and corrected it. Almoustine 21:49, 23 June 2010 (EEST)

Tanks, before deleting your work, I prefer ask you. that all --CharlesF 04:42, 24 June 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Bello & Bera

Hi Almoustine, I need sources for:

Person:112703 (specialy why you like him to Person:114684)

According with All sources I've put (and you delate) (and according to your sources) Bello is différant than Bera because of:

Bera, and come from Person:114684 -> Catalan + Wiki
Bello -> Toulouse + Wiki

So Why you mix them ?

And why you put 4 parents to:

Please look [1]. If you need I can translate some french documents for you, specialy the document where you delate my comment. Thanks --CharlesF 10:44, 14 July 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Bera

Please Almoustine, What is that ?? I put sources, I put translation extract for you (that you delate). And you detroy my work !! What is this fachiste attitude ? I agree To speek like we did, dut, please don't destruct my work OR PUT SOURCES !!!--CharlesF 09:52, 15 July 2010 (EEST)

Please Just READ --CharlesF 09:57, 15 July 2010 (EEST)

In fact I'm very shocked by the fact you did, you whant to speak (on the discution page), and you continue changing the link without responce me and READ me. By this fact (and the act you bon't put more sources) I corect the work by what say my sources (and your's). --CharlesF 11:14, 15 July 2010 (EEST)

Many of the supposed Renne le Chateau documents have been shown to be forgeries. Therefore their claims must be weighted against other claims. The primary purpose of the Renne le Chateau documents is to establish a dynastic link with the descendants and relatives of Christ (Grail mysteries). To that end (establishing descent from gods) I retain an open mind with regard to sources and claims defaulting to the more scientific and politically plausable solution rather than jumping to establish the link (and thereby ending the lineage) or to dismiss it outright (also ending the lineage). I believe it is better to show multiple sets of parents that are being investigated than to dead end a lineage and allow thousands of potential ancestral links to remain unidentified. Allowing multiple sets of parents allows researchers to continue their investigations based on a set of clues from different cultures, languages, past research etc... that (combined with the elimination of duplicates) is the strength of Rodovid. Your entries have not been the only ones deleted from this controversial lineage or many others as well. I seem to have problems with many people eliminating/replacing my sources.

I will continue to make notes in the Notes fields of people who I edit. In the case of Bello, my research strongly indicates that he was the son of William Gellone based on Anomastics, regional politics, religion, and available records. Your research based on the Renne le Chateau documents shows otherwise... however neither does it indicate that he was the son of William Razes. The best solution is what we have now. Showing both fathers and separating the two "sons" Bello and Bera. I am committed to continuing our collaboration on this and other records in the database, but would like to ask that the interactions remain constructive and not appear as detractions on either part Almoustine 20:46, 24 July 2010 (EEST)

Sur, I would like to work with you not against you. Thanks for your responce.

For Bello, I didn't view any document who mantion his faster (as a Guillaume or not), how can you link them ? (please source)
For the théorie as Bera is son of Guillaume de Gellone the only persone say that is Dom Vaissette (and Renne le Chateau say it is imposiblie because of Anomastics)

Actually I do not agree that Anomastics rule out Guillaume Gellone. If only the primary relationship is considered... OK, but if the entire family for 4 generations is considered Bera could well be the son of Guillaume Gellone. I think too much has been made of one person's theory in light that many others believe otherwise. Almoustine 18:06, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

Don Vaissette théory say he is Frank (Guillaume de Gellone was as in .en Wikipeadia)

I do believe that the Bera that you are editing was a Frank (and a Catholic) not an (Arian) Visigoth as was Bello. And that it is an unfortunate circumstance of history that the two men of the same era were named similarly and had fathers with similar (not the same) names. Almoustine 18:06, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

Renne le Chateau say not cuz he was Goth (as in the .fr Wikipeadia) and his son have typical Goth name (Argila and Guillemund). The name Bera is presant in the ancestory of comte de Razès, so I may be the logical desandant of thems. Bera fall in desgrace after a tipical Goth turnement.

See Above..and use multiple sources and not rely only on the Renne le Chateau documents.Almoustine 18:06, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

Argila de Razes, I put him son of Bera as in my sources (Renne le Chateau, fmg web site, ... ) so please source

The english Wikipeadia page looks a copy of french wikipeadia page (exept french have sources), what do you think about that ?

I cannot speak for the Wikipedia site. It is much like Rodovid in that it is open source and collaborative. I have not contributed to that page on Wikipedia so I cannot speak to its ultimate authenticity or originality.Almoustine 18:06, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

Where we are agree (if I well understand):

Bera & Bello is tow differant person

Yes, AbsolutelyAlmoustine 18:06, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

There are 2 Guillaume (one Gellone and one Razès)

Yes, AbsolutelyAlmoustine 18:06, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

The father of Bera have Guillaume (Guillemo, William, ....) for name

Yes, Absolutely, Both Bera and Bello have fathers with the name Guillaume Almoustine 18:06, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

Question: Some genealogist disconnect 2 Bera (one Razès and one Barcelone), What do you think about that ? --116.228.134.182 12:00, 26 July 2010 (EEST)--CharlesF 12:01, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

I think it is important since the lineage is ambiguous that we keep both Bera and Bello attached to both William Gelone and William Razes and make a note in the records that these families are both under active research. If we disconnect them then we run the risk of the issue never getting resolved. Almoustine 18:06, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

You said "The primary purpose of the Renne le Chateau documents is to establish a dynastic link with the descendants and relatives of Christ (Grail mysteries)", In fact they don't speak about that, thay speak about Bérenger Saunière (french prest who may be discover a huge trésor) and Cathares. In fact many strange théory said Guillaume de Gellone is the descandant of the Christ.--CharlesF 12:13, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

I am aware of this... Sauniere discovered the documents at the Renne Le Chateau which were supposedly the lineage of Christ hidden for safe keeping by the Priory. They have since been nominally discredited although I personally am not opposed to considering that some of what they say may be correct (may being the operative term). They may also be incorrect, but may point researchers into a new or lost direction. Regarding descendancy from Jesus Christ, I have no strong opinion one way or the other. I do try to keep an open mind with regard to the matter and have come to suspect that the person known as Jesus Christ has become an amalgamated hero comprised of several different men who lived during his time. Almoustine 18:06, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

I hardly don't support the "DaVinci code" théory (too much unsertitude specialy in Marie-Madeléne) :-) Thanks to you I just found the info you called me (since the start) (my source (can/is) corrupt) You have Right, Sorry For all (on english wiki - not in the french) I didn't know this link beween Saunier and this théory.

it remains that the arguments are plausible (onomastics) --CharlesF 09:52, 28 July 2010 (EEST)

I put off "Bernard" on the file of Béra, the risque of the mix with "Bernard of Septimania" is too hight.--CharlesF 12:52, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

Ok, but it is an important historical clue as to his identity and why the mixup...Please note it in the record... BTW I am restoring the two Bera's to the combined family of William Gellone and William Razes until the lineage is resolved.Almoustine 18:06, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

Ok, but becareful with admin. They don't like that (they prefer to disconect and reconect when we are sure).--CharlesF 09:52, 28 July 2010 (EEST)

To resume (becose this atricle is big) he only question is : Bera is (or not) Goth ?

I believe Bera was a Frank and Bello was a Visigoth. (Bera = Frank) (Bello = Visigoth)Almoustine 16:56, 28 July 2010 (EEST)

say not (frank) : wiki.en + Don Vaissette (1730)
say yes (Goth) : wiki.fr + Renne-le-Chateau (pos. corrupt) + Saint-Guilhem-le-Désert (buy no mantion of him) and (but no find sources) the typical Goth turnement of Bera (they speak about that in the french Wiki).

On this last argument whe can read : (en Wiki)"In February 820, a general assembly was held in Aachen at which Bera was in attendance. Gaucelm (son of William of Gellone) sent his Visigoth lieutenant Sanila in his place, who accused Bera of infidelity and perfidy. The litigation, as was customary in that era, was settled by a duel in the palace. Bera was defeated by Sanila." and in the french Wiki the precise it is a Typical Goth Turmemant.

So the son of William of Gellone try to kill Bera (with the help of Sanila)(if they are brother it is a fratricide)--CharlesF 09:52, 28 July 2010 (EEST)

I believe that history has become confused as to which prince was involved in which turnement for exactly the same reason that we are confused about which Bera/Bello belongs in which lineage. Almoustine 16:56, 28 July 2010 (EEST)

Technicely, If Bera is the son of G.Gellone, he can be half-Goth (explain why Goths like him and the tournement) the problém in this case is why he prefered to take Goth name "nationality", to be agains G.Gellone and his son and not been declared like hiss son in the St Guillem le dessert list.--CharlesF 06:33, 30 July 2010 (EEST)

Are Guillemó (114684) the same as Guillemó ?. If yes wiki say he is the grand son of G. Gellone and son of Berà. If yes he can't be the father of Bello. I don't have sources for Bello, and your source speak about Bera.--CharlesF 10:36, 28 July 2010 (EEST)

I am not at all sure that the two williams (Father of Bera and Father of Bello) are the same person either. They may be, but then again perhaps not. I am still actively researching that. The Cordoban Muslims were preexisting before the Arab invasion. The two families of Razi and Qasi are related to the Visigoths who were Arian Christians. Razi is Persian, Qasi is North African Gael(Celtic Berber) and the Franks were Eastern European Germanics. The name William comes to us primarily through Western/Christian clerical sources. The original names may have been something slightly different but both translated to Guillaume/Guillemo.

When I get into a dead end like this I find it useful to stop for a while and work on other persons in the family. Usually research on them answers some hard questions that otherwise would have been unanswerable if I only spent time on the trouble child. This is especially true in instances where history has been rewritten to suit the victors. They often cleanse the records of the person they wish for history to forget; but then forget themselves to cleanse the records of relatives. Almoustine 16:56, 28 July 2010 (EEST)

Hi Almoustine, I don't understand the mix between Borelle and Bello. Can you explain --CharlesF 05:28, 2 August 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Person:31415 (Chlodwig/Clovis)

Hello Almoustine,

You can use undelete for reference: en:Special:Undelete/Person:31415. As you noted, this had become an amalgam of two different people, one of whom was a duplicate. I'd just like to ensure you're aware that your edit of 19:02, 11 June 2008 was the original source of that confusion, through the addition of other parents. Other edits by other users furthered the entanglement to something truly unmanageable. Similarly, at en:Special:Undelete/Family:9309, you added Chlodwig (31415) to the family that previously only had Clovis (31421) in it. I don't mean to hold this against you or ask you be sanctioned or anything like that (as some of the editors here seem to be saying, unjustly) but just make you aware how entanglements and database problems start. I've fixed the problem by doing a mass deletion of the record across all localizations and then undeleting the original, pre-2008 French version, which was free of confusion. You can help by using similar tactics when you see amalgams in the future (if you need any assistance, you can ask me) and trying to avoid mistakes that can mushroom into entanglements in the future. Thanks, Wikiacc (≈) 23:13, 15 July 2010 (EEST)

Thank you. I do try to be careful but find that from time to time I too am human and mistakes do occur. Fortunately they have been few and far between and usually caught in time. I do appreciate your help in fixing this particular issue. I have to say that for the most part I do enjoy the atmosphere of collaboration that occurs at Rodovid. That spirit has allowed Rodovid to accomplish something that has so long eluded efforts elsewhere...the identification and restoration of historical individuals to their rightful place in the human genotree that have long been denied due to problems with language barriers and conflicting scientific research methodologies. I look forward to working as a contributor and admin to help keep duplication to a minimum and flesh out missing links in the family trees. Almoustine 20:25, 24 July 2010 (EEST)

[edit] deleting in the English localization

Hi Almoustine, I was going through your deletion log on the English localization. You've been doing prodigious and greatly appreciated work in deleting duplicates (beyond, I think, what anyone else has done). One thing to note is in case records exist in multiple localizations, it is helpful to go over one's deletion log (for you, http://en.rodovid.org/wk?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Almoustine) and look for redlinked names. That of course would indicate the record that one has deleted exists in another localization--it can be accessed by the "in other languages" tab in the redlink, and as an English admin you should have deletion rights in other localizations. I periodically go through my log and check for these, and delete them in the other localizations, as that is the only way to fully delete them. I noticed your log has a few of these; I've taken care of some but it would be great if you could help with this also. Thanks for all you've done so far. --Wikiacc (≈) 08:05, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

I am actually having some trouble with this. Do you have a demo... I find that I actually have to import the duplicate record into the English db before I am able to delete it, even then I sometimes encounter a problem where the record simply will not delete.. also on occasion the deleted record will reappear in the tree. (I am guessing that this is has to do with what you are talking about with the records still remaining available in other localizations. Almoustine 09:07, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

Yes, when the deleted record appears in the tree, that means that it's still somewhere in the database. When you import it into English and delete it it actually doesn't do anything--Rodovid will see the record as long as it exists somewhere. An example of such a record is this one: en:Person:361181. You will note that you deleted it in English but the record still exists, and if there were a family attached you could still see them in that record and it would appear in theirs. The only way to delete it entirely is to click on the Bahasa Indonesia version, under "in other languages" on the sidebar (or the tab if you click edit). There you should be already logged in, and have a delete tab (in Bahasa it's "hapus") which functions. (If you don't then something weird is going on with the software.) Once you delete it there it is entirely gone from the database, but as it is it hasn't actually been fully deleted. Please ask me if you have any questions or problems with this; if you can't delete in other localizations Baya is the person you should talk to. Wikiacc (≈) 21:04, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Gleb I (Glevius) Roman (of Beloozero) d. 971

GlebI(Glevius)Roman(ofBeloozero) cannot be the son of Vasily_Konstantinovich as the son died 337 years before the death of the father. Please, take out this relation.

Done... I am not sure how Gleb was changed from the original parents that I assigned. I reassigned them to their proper parent. Almoustine 06:33, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

Why did you changed the original record the Clan Rurykowicze to Rossomani ?

Rosomani is the Tribal Designation of this lineage in English Latinate. Rurikid would be the dynastic designation if you prefer.Almoustine 06:33, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

The source you have put: source is a broken www link. You probably wanted to put a source Boris_and_Gleb ? This source is not correct for your Gleb I, as Gleb-Saint was born 987, died in 9.09.1015, not in 971.

Gleb and Boris were different generations. The Hagiography is also incorrect. The Eastern Roman Emperor correctly identified the parents of the martyrs as Person:14702. Others assign him to the family of Vladimir I which is based on conjecture. Almoustine 06:33, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

Look at: Глеб_Владимирович_(князь_муромский).

So, please, replace this wrong source by correct one. The same for his brother Boris. I can not find your Boris and Gleb in russian genealogy. Where are your sources ?

Both Saints Boris and Gleb were the sons of Vladimir_I_Rurikid. Why do you put Saint-Gleb, Glebius_Leo_of_Murom as a son of your GlebI(Glevius)Roman(ofBeloozero)

because Glebius Leo was the son of Gleb I. Saint Boris and Saint Gleb were different generations. Gleb was the son of Boris' brother. Almoustine 06:33, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

This contradicts the wikipedia source: Глеб_Владимирович_Святой which you have put yourself. This record is internally contradictive.

I try to include all sources even those that are contradictive if they are Wikipedia sources. It helps the Wikipedia authors correct Wikipedia articles. However there is an interesting bug in Rodovid that sometimes attributes edits to authors other than the ones that made them. This has to be an example of is one of those instances because I don't read Romanian Cyrillic Almoustine 06:33, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

--Alexandre 01:31, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

Almoustine, you corrected the father of GlebI(Glevius)Roman(ofBeloozero) on English and French pages. Thanks for that. But on Russian, Ukranian and Polish version there is still this absurdity that the son died 337 years before the death of the father. Before you start to edit a person record in one language you should make sure that it is consistent on other languages.--Alexandre 14:13, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

I am an English Rodovid Admin and usually leave the editing of other languages to their respective admins.Almoustine 16:54, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

Your actual status of English Admin does not means that you have to create English version conflicting with other localizations.--Alexandre 02:22, 30 July 2010 (EEST)

Concerning, the Saint Gleb which is on English page Glebius_Leo_of_Murom we should start serious discussions on the special thread.--Alexandre 14:18, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

Sounds fine to meAlmoustine 16:54, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

Almoustine, you have put to the person GlebI(Glevius)Roman(ofBeloozero) the source. I looked very carefully into this source and see nothing about this person GlebI(Glevius)Roman(ofBeloozero). This source is relevant only for Saint Gleb (d.1015). Please, remove this source from this person.--Alexandre 15:41, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

Actually the source mentions that the were of differing generations that is why I left it on the record Almoustine 16:54, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

The source does not mention this person GlebI(Glevius)Roman(ofBeloozero), so it can not be the source for this person. The claim in this source Saint Gleb is probably different generation (very uncertain claim) in not enouph to put it as a source for GlebI(Glevius)Roman(ofBeloozero). In this source there is no mention of existence of Gleb_I and there is no information that Gleb_I is the father of Saint Gleb.--Alexandre 02:22, 30 July 2010 (EEST)

Almoustine, you have put to the person GlebI(Glevius)Roman(ofBeloozero) the wikipedia link Prince_of_Beloozero. I looked very carefully into this wikipedia link and see nothing about this person GlebI(Glevius)Roman(ofBeloozero). The earliest Prince of Beloozero mentioned in this wikipedia page is Gleb Vasilkovich, 1238-1278, while your Gleb I died 971. The difference is almost 300 years. Please, remove this wikipedia link from this person.--Alexandre 16:13, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

See message above. Almoustine 16:54, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

I have seen the message above. Your wikipedia link has no mention of the person GlebI(Glevius)Roman(ofBeloozero), so it can not be the source for this person. Please, remove it.--Alexandre 02:22, 30 July 2010 (EEST)

Almoustine, i corrected the Russian, Ukranian and Polish localisation of this person GlebI(Glevius)Roman(ofBeloozero) in such a way that now they are consistent (concerning his father) with your English and French localizations. It does not mean that i agree with all your information on this person. I posted the description of the problems with Gleb I in the discussion.--Alexandre 23:15, 30 July 2010 (EEST)

Awesome. Thanks... I will incorporate the source as soon as I can, there are two It came from a multivolume book not a website and the page reference is missing. I am working on compiling the references and will incorporate them as soon as possible. I remember being surprised at the findings and did read the reference but am now having to backtrack since the reference was not correctly captured. Almoustine 00:47, 8 August 2010 (EEST)

[edit] rules

Please, edit final rules - look at announce! --Igor 17:53, 3 September 2010 (EEST)

Hello... I do have a minor concern on some of the rules. I think that perhaps some can be abused. I have no idea where you all were discussing these and feel like I was left out of the discussion. But I will do my best. I will post notes here and perhaps you can bring up some of these issues with whomever was involved in making the rules. Almoustine 17:56, 3 September 2010 (EEST)

Ok. I use 2 of them, but 4.1.1 talk about connection between user and record about him and 2.6. is about not trees - all records in Rodovid. Anonymous editing no longer supported! --Igor 18:04, 3 September 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Corruption of Pages on English Rodovid due to Code Insertion

Baya we have a problem with interface display and functionality in the English Database for certain individuals.

I believe this may have been introduced with some new code. This effects not only the page on the photo but also his parent's page (image also uploaded) en:Images:codecorruption2.png

Can you check it please. Almoustine 16:26, 21 October 2011 (EEST)

Done! (for en:Person:630920) Are there any other problematic records? --Christophe Tesson - ^talk. 18:14, 21 October 2011 (EEST)

Thank you :) for fixing that. I haven't noticed that problem on any other pages. Almoustine 23:49, 21 October 2011 (EEST)

[edit] Misc

I and Tesson wrote about it several times, e.g. in rodovid_admin@googlegroups.com. If you have some ideas - please write them now on Talk:Rodovid_Rules. --Igor 18:04, 3 September 2010 (EEST)

I was not a member of that group until only about a week ago. Almoustine 18:29, 3 September 2010 (EEST)

Hmm. i'ts strange. --Igor 18:30, 3 September 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Merci from Almoustine

Hi Tesson, I noticed that you have been helping to police spammers and spam entries in the English DB. I wanted to let you know that your help with this is appreciated. Spam is a big problem right now. I am not sure how to solve it. I suggested to Baya that perhaps he could install a Captcha routine to the account creation logic to prevent the spam bots from creating accounts. What do you think? Almoustine 4 février 2012 à 14:27 (EET)

Hi Almoustine.

My opinion is that we have to let Baya work on important things.

Spam is not such a bing thing. We just have to watch recent changes and block some users (1 or 2 per day on Rodovid.fr)

It's much more easy if you make Rodovid.en "red link free" as we did here two years ago: nowadays 75% of red links in "recent change" fr.page is spam.

More important than spam: we should search a way to help Baya improving Engine: Wikiacc and I started to wrote ideas on some major improvements here: User talk:Wikiacc#"Améliorations requises"

The fact is that Baya is alone and buisy. How could we help? Please, try to open the discussion with english speaking users. I think it's important. And a happy new year --Christophe Tesson - ^talk. 14:40, 4 February 2012 (EET)

Thank you Tesson, I have only recently returned following some life changes... But will become more involved in helping to clean up wherever it is appropriate. I have some persons here in the US that would like to help on the English Rodovid. How can I get them accounts? Almoustine 17:48, 14 March 2013 (EET)

[edit] +++

Dear Almoustine, Please, follow the link engine:Make-believe people --Baya 08:31, 11 July 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Unblocking

You can unblock CharlesF here :

en:Special:Ipblocklist

I have displaced your last post at the right place. Please try to be a little bit rigorous. Dialogue will be easier. --Christophe Tesson - ^talk. 09:35, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

Could you please help me to find exact translation of "make believe people" in french? --Christophe Tesson - ^talk. 10:29, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Unblocking?

Displaced from Talk:Make-believe people.

Just for information: I'm still Blocked, and Almoustine continue to undo my cleaning and don't add any sources to her "undo", making violation to rules--CharlesF 15:51, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

Dear Almoustine, I agree with you on one point: Wikipedia is not a source ! Passing that I realy don't agree with what you put in the datadase; You link peoples that you can't prouve they are linked; just based on the first names It is too short to make a link !

Yes I'm as you would link more consideration from you; you undo my cleaning without sources and explanation ! ~~for the point please source because is you, (not me) that not reaspect rules !~~ --CharlesF 16:17, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

.#1 and #4 ask of Baya are cearly not resacted from you; detal for you ! , ... --CharlesF 16:24, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

Please don't edit old posts. It makes impossible following conversation. Please, everybody, be a bit rigorous. And please try to write in comprehensible globish. Sorry CharlesF, I can't understand what you wrote. --Christophe Tesson - ^talk. 16:30, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

One more think, As you remarked, I've readed you sources; (some time a lot !) and no one was pertinant, no one was speaking about the link I've cutted, as far some time they don't speak about this person. it is to easy to put links like that and say "read for a month and we will see" ! ask to other contributors who make the exercize ! --CharlesF 16:46, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

Uh please, CharlesF, don't do the mistake I did some years ago. This page is not here to argue with anyone. --Christophe Tesson - ^talk. 17:51, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

My appology --CharlesF 18:36, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Unblocking ? (2)

Displaced from Talk:Make-believe people.

Dear Almoustine

I wrote here a complete non-sense. Will you block me?

Please, unlock CharlesF

(OK, OK I'm argueing…) --Christophe Tesson - ^talk. 19:53, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

I'm unblock --CharlesF 21:44, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

No, no Tesson I think she will not ban you, it is on DFA critera look:

Pharamond he is well known to be no real; and in Rodovid it is an Armeniam, living in Britain ruling Frank (from Cologne) with the Roman nationality, he is prest too, ...
Sunno he is a real personne, King of Franks, but here he is Roman, born in india, and genaral "Franco-Allemagne" and father of (Pharamond?).
and many other ...

It seems in the same range that your record, Best Regards--CharlesF 00:50, 13 July 2015 (EEST)

Well. I propose to continue this conversation on Almoustine's talk page. It will be cleaner. --Christophe Tesson - ^talk. 07:43, 13 July 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Portrait and self portrait