
#REDIRECT Merovingian
:''For other uses of the term 'Merovingian', see Merovingian (disambiguation).'' The Merovingians were a dynasty of Franks kings who ruled a frequently fluctuating area in parts of present-day France and Germany from the 5th century to 8th century AD. They were sometimes referred to as the "long-haired kings" by contemporaries, though the significance of their long hair is not clear. The Merovingian dynasty (see List of Frankish Kings) owes its name to Merovech (sometimes Latinised as Meroveus or Merovius), leader of the Salian Franks from about 447 to 457, and emerges into wider history with the victories of Childeric I (reigned about 457-481) against the Visigoths, Saxons and Alamanni. Childeric's son Clovis I went on to unite most of Gaul north of the Loire (486). He won the Battle of Tolbiac against the Alamanni by adopting Roman Catholicism (496), and decisively defeated the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse in the Battle of Vouillé (507). Clovis on his death partitioned his kingdom among his four sons according to Frankish custom. Over the next two centuries, this tradition would continue; however, accidents of fertility would ensure that occasionally the whole realm would be reunited under a single king; and even when multiple Merovingian kings ruled, the kingdom was conceived of as a single realm ruled collectively by several kings. In this way, the Frankish Kingdom resembled the late Roman Empire. The Merovingian kings appointed magnates to be ''comites'', counts, charging them with defense, administration, and the judgement of disputes. This happened against the backdrop of the collapse of the centralized Roman system of administration and taxation and the disappearance of the old civil service structure as the Franks took over administration from the Romans. The counts had to provide armies; they enlisted them from their subordinates who were named knights and endowed with land in return for service. These armies were subject to the king's call for military support. The counts paid no money to the king, for there was little money in circulation. The king was expected to support himself with the products of his private, or royal, domain. The system developed in time to feudalism. Between 561 and 613, the various branches of the Merovingian house engaged in an intermittent and bloody war over the succession to the kingship, which ended with the family's standing notably diminished. By the 7th century century, the kings ceased to wield effective political authority and had become symbolic figures; they began to allot more and more day-to-day administration to a powerful official in their household called the ''maior domo'' or major-domo. This Latin title literally translates to "the greater one of the house"; the usual English translation is Mayor of the Palace, although this official was not a mayor in the modern sense of the word. The office of Mayor of the Palace itself became hereditary in the Carolingian family. Soon the Mayors were the real military and political leaders of the Frankish kingdom. This fact became manifest in 732 when an invading Arab army (Moors) from Spain was defeated by an army led not by the King, but rather by the Mayor Charles Martel. Charles' son, the Mayor Pippin III, gathered support among Frankish nobles for a change in dynasty. When the Pope appealed to him for assistance against the Lombards, he insisted that the church sanction his coronation in exchange. So, in 751, Childeric III, the last Merovingian, was deposed. He was allowed to live, but his long hair was cut and he was sent to a monastery. Merovingian coins are on display at ''Monnaie de Paris'', (the French Mint) at 11, quai de Conti, Paris, France. Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln put forth an pseudohistory of the Merovingians in their book, ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail''. ==See also== *List of Frankish Kings French history German nobility Royal families Franks
why is the matrix: reloaded villain called The Merovingian, then? Were the directors of this movie name-dropping esoterica or is there something deeper in their choice of words? Please forward any theories and analogies to elphteq@yahoo.com.au [250503] I removed the statement beginning, ''According to all major qualified historians ...'' which was (and still is) followed by the Britannica, a popular reference book, and the BBC. Where did they study? Exactly what university do they teach at? User:Danny I removed the ridiculous (and I say this advisedly -- there is no proof, and the scholarship in Baigent's book is not well-regarded. User:JHK Ms. JHK or whoever you are in real life, my work is not ridiculous. Please refrain from your continued degradation or leave Wikipedia because deleting proper text on your whim withgout foundation is unacceptasble and violates Wikipedia conventions. You did this yeaterday on Clovis and were wrong. Please stop. User:Triton ::I have to agree with Ms. JHK's deletion here, I would have done the same. No reputable scholar believes in the information she deleted. -- User:Zoe ---- Triton, I do not believe the bit I referred to as ridiculous (the bit about the Merovingian descent from Jesus Christ) was written by you, unless you have yet another name. It was that first removal I called ridiculous. Here are my explanations for editing your contribution. I reverted because I do not have time to pick through, and so feel it is better to revert to something trustworthy until properly thought out changes can be made. This is the paragraphy I had especial problems with: :"This repeated partitioning not only reaffirmed these new political units, but they also undermined the strength of the Frankish Empire, which was being raided at its frontiers. The Slavs and the Avars posed a threat on the northeastern frontier, the Lombards on the southeastern frontier and the Muslims on the southwestern frontier. In 613, the king of Neustria took control of the other two kingdoms and a united Frankish Kingdom was created with its capital in Paris." I am not 100%, but very close, that this is talking about the division of the Frankish Empire after Louis the Pious. I believe this because: #During the 6th c., the Slavs and Avars weren't really a threat. #This paragraph implies that the Muslims were a threat before 613 -- they weren't -- they COULD NOT HAVE BEEN -- Islam did not exist before right around 622.That is not true. Mohammed A.D.570-632 founder of Islam. RLM The latter part of the paragraph talks about a united Frankish kingsom -- correct for the Merovingians, but the earlier part talks about an Empire -- generally used only to refer to Carolingian Francia. These types of errors in editing are exactly why I felt it necessary to remove information from Clovis I until it had been verified. They are at best careless. User:JHK Muslims existed long before 622. Who says the that "During the 6th c., the Slavs and Avars weren't really a threat". You? What source, please. AND "an Empire -- generally used only to refer to Carolingian Francia" is more theories with "generally" and maybe and golly gosh. How about fact. The word Empire was used all the time. It is not specific to anyone. PuleezeUser:Triton Maybe, Ms JHK or whoever you really are, you should learn what Muslim means and what Islam means. Then put it with Wotan and presto you have learned something. User:Triton A question regarding the esoteric history regarding the descent from Jesus Christ and all that: obviously it is not true (that is, the Merovingians were not descendants of Jesus Christ), and obviously this is a later invention. But how much later? Is this a genuine (late) medieval tradition? A renaissance tradition? An enlightenment freemason type myth? A nineteenth century romantic "rediscovery"? Something that people made up when ''The Matrix Reloaded'' came out? In any event, the story is certainly out there, and I've seen it elsewhere. I think it should at least be referenced on wikipedia, although only if a) we have some idea what the origins of the story are; and b) clearly explain that the story arose much later, and is not true (in NPOV language) of course. User:Jlk7e 02:24 28 May 2003 (UTC) And, to Triton: Mohammed was born in 570 AD. He didn't even start founding Islam until 610. Its calendar starts in 622. Islam didn't leave Arabia until 634. It didn't reach Spain until 711. I find it hard to see how it could have been a threat to the Frankish kingdom from the west in 613 AD. User:Jlk7e 02:24 28 May 2003 (UTC) John, are you too joining in with derogatory remarks now? In any event, you too should learn what Muslim means and what Islam means. May the Prophet bless you, too. User:Triton What on earth are you talking about? User:Jlk7e 02:30 28 May 2003 (UTC) :Oh, and Islam means "Submission" and Muslim means "one who submits." But, again, what in the world does that have to do with the fact that Mohammed was sitting pretty in Mecca in 613 AD, and that Muslims were nowhere near the Frankish Kingdom until a century later? User:Jlk7e 02:31 28 May 2003 (UTC) Yes Muslims, were nowhere near the Frankish Kingdom in 613. But since the original paragraph mentions the southwestern frontier, what would now be Spain, maybe whoever contributed the text had mistaken them for the Visigoths? They did rule Spain at 613 and had earlier conflicts with the Franks. User: Dimadick ---- John -- the first time I saw this it was in Michael Baigent (sp?) ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail.'' I don't know how new it is, but I know the book got lots of laughs when I was in grad school. It's connected to legends about the Templar treasure and a village called Rennes-la-chateau. Recently, the legend made an appearance in ''Gabriel Knight 3'', a computer game that blended these legends with the idea that the Templars escaped to Scotland and somehow are connected to the house of Stewart and the freemasons. Katherine Kurtz has also picked up on some of these legends (mostly the Templar stuff) and combined it first with the Freemasons in her (with D.L. Harris) ''Adept'' series and also with Robert the Bruce and the Loch Ness Monster in ''The Temple and the Crown'' and ''The Temple and the Stone''. This is definitely esoteric legend rather than provable history. (I've read an awfeul lot on these guys -- none of this is ever mentioned, even as a possibility) I really think that we should omit any reference from the real history pages, unless you want to start a trend for every alternate history/fantasy to make its way into reality. Perhaps it would fit on a page on esoterica? User:JHK PS -- Triton -- do you actually know what derogatory means? You throw the word around a lot, but never seem to use it correctly. John: The Muslim threat never diminished from Philippe A II & Richard Lionheart. Tensions, threats, possible invasions were on and off for hundreds of years. And, what on earth is the person calling themselves JHK talking about? User:Triton ---- In regards to Empire versus Kingdom -- It's an Empire if it's ruled by an Emperor. The Frankish Kingdoms are never called an Empire until the coronation of Charlemagne in 800. I've never seen a Merovingian called an Emperor -- simply reges francorum -- kings of the Franks And that bit about Muslims being around in the 12th c. has nothing to do with the fact that they WERE NOT around before 711. Of course they were around till later -- till 1492 and the Reconquista, as a matter of factUser:JHK In terms of apocryphal stories, it seems to me that they ought to be talked about if they're actually genuine legends, and not something made up by twentieth century hucksters. For instance, I think that the page on Charlemagne ought to talk about the legend of Charlemagne, the Paladins, and all that stuff, or, at least, have some sort of link to that. The page on the Templars ought to have some material on the various legends of the Templars. And so forth. This legend sounds to be like one concocted fairly recently, though, and thus probably shouldn't be included. User:Jlk7e 03:11 28 May 2003 (UTC) :John, the legends, traditions & stories about Charlemagne & his Paladins should properly belong under Matter of France. Unfortunately, at present there is only a link to this topic in the article on Roland, & maybe another one at Ludovico Ariosto. It should be as easy to research & write an article on as on King Arthur. -- User:Llywrch 05:02 28 May 2003 (UTC) ::Yeah, the Charlemagnic legend coverage in wikipedia is rather weak at the moment. I don't know enough about it to write anything, at least not at the moment. But, I would say, that some mention of the legends ought to be made on the Charlemagne page. As in "after Charlemagne's death, a series of legends grew up around him and his 12 Paladins, bla bla bla, see Matter of France." User:Jlk7e 05:08 28 May 2003 (UTC) :Well, I took my first look at the Charlemagne page (gimme a break, please: there's over 120,000 articles & I'm still trying to find time to write the ones I want to, let alone read all of the ones of interest to me ;-), & made some changes -- including a link to Matter of France. Maybe someone will see the link there & start writing it. -- User:Llywrch 05:22 28 May 2003 (UTC) ::Oh, I certainly wasn't criticizing you in any way. There's so much work to be done on this thing, I sometimes don't know where to start. I'm sure it's like that for most of us, which is why we're doing this. User:Jlk7e 05:37 28 May 2003 (UTC) :No criticism taken, John. (Note the smiley.) It's just that you made an excellent suggesiton, & I figured there was no harm in having a look at the article & seing if I could insert the needed words in a minute or two. But you are quite correct about just how much work there is to be done. -- User:Llywrch 22:46 28 May 2003 (UTC) I don't think this is DW or Elliot, Julie. It appears that English is not this person's first language. -- User:Zoe :yeah -- it could be the 64/MammaBear person. I'm also not sure that it's not a native speaker writing above his/her level. Or maybe a non-native with a crappy pocket translator. Still, no amount of cultural difference excuses the level of rudeness this person seems capable of. Nice to hear from you, BTW!User:JHK Sorry Ms. JHK. would you please explain "''level of rudeness this person seems capable''"? If I'm rude please point it out to Mr. Wales. He does not tolerate that and I don't want any bad accusations against me. I'm still sad about you calling my sincere efforts "nonsense" or what was the latest, oh yes, "ridiculous." Maybe we should check with Mr. Wales and see if that is how we are to address each others efforts. Thank you. User:Triton you have had enough of my time and attention lately. you certainly don't deserve an answer. User:JHK Returning to the "ridiculous" story about Jesus as an ancestor of the Merovingians. Its only source seems to be the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" - 1982 by Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln and Richard Leigh.I haven't read the book but I have come across magazine articles who mention their "theory". It makes two claims actualy rather than one. First that the Merovingians were descended from Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, Second that "All true European royalty is descended from the Merovingians". It is certainly not a very serious attempt at history or geneology. But the book seems to have spawned a popular Conspiracy theory, and risen some interest in the Merovingians. At least a google search about "Jesus Christ Merovingians" came up with 800 findings. Some of them were even discussing about Kings of minor importance like Dagobert II. Maybe the article should mention the theory ,its source and that "No reputable scholar believes in the information" as Zoe put it. Mentioning it in that context doesn't make it a "fact". User: Dimadick If Gregory of Tours is our main source for the Merovingians he should also be mentioned in the article, along with his point of view in a matter of subjects. The following site does examine his work in that light:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gregory-hist.html. User: Dimadick Speaking of geneology there are many Internet amateur geneologists, claiming descent from Clovis and trying to trace his own descent. Should this be mentioned as in the article about Charlemagne? This is an example:http://www.pa.uky.edu/~shapere/dkbingham/d0005/g0000007.html#I21392. User: Dimadick :I think that stuff should be included in a "genealogical myths" section of an article on Genealogy. If they do a search, they'll find it, but the won't just glance at the page title and assume it's part of the history. If it's under genealogical myths, they'll know off the bat that it's not taken seriously. -- User:JHK ---- Um --- not really any clearer -- the original point of the statement could be clearer, but its intent was to differentiate from later patterns of inheritance, e.g. primogeniture -- wanna have a go at including that bit? I'm too tired and will probably forget. After all, division of property is one of the cool things about the Franks!User:JHK ---- Removed the conspiracy theory stuff -- looks like most of the people here agree it shouldn't be in the article, if you look at the conversation above. ---- Quite aside from this zany parahistory stuff, there is a long list of entries in 'What links here' that should be looked through for inclusion into the text here. User:Wetman 04:58, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC) == Peter or Paul? == "in order to gain power through the "spiritual" dynasty of Peter instead of the "holy blood" (i.e. Sangreal) of Mary Magdalene's descendants." Peter? Don't you mean Paul? Although I haven't read the book in question, If the "Roman Church" did anything to enhance a spiritual dynasty it would be the dynasy of Peter, not Paul. They RC church claims Peter as the 1st Pope and claims the the Bishop of Rome is Peter's heir and has inherited the authority given to Peter by Christ. ("On this Rock...). User:Dsmdgold 02:30, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Holy Blood, Holy Grail== Just wondering, but should we really have the entirely dubious pseudo-history of this book in what is otherwise a sensible article about a Frankish dynasty? Why not just say something like "The Merovingian dynasty is at the center of the esoteric history of bla bla blas' book Holy Blood, Holy Grail," and then discuss the rest of the theory in an article on the book. Given that absolutely no actual historians give any credence whatsoever to these nonsensical theories (whatever the fact that they are used in ''The Da Vinci Code''), I don't think these theories ought to be written about in any detail on this page. User:John Kenney 05:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) == I dont care about what happened, I want to know what people believed == Certainly (at the highest level of certainty a human being can have)the merovigians are not descendants of Christ or Mary Magdalene, but my question is, what did people at the time believed? Was at any century a sect that professed such ideas? ---- I moved the text on the ''Matrix'' character the Merovingian to a separate article. It really doesn't belong in an article about the historical Merovingian dynasty. Will create disambiguation page shortly. User:McMullen == Holy Roman Empire vs. Roman Empire == The article currently contains this text: "Clovis on his death partitioned his kingdom among his four sons according to Frankish custom. Over the next two centuries, this tradition would continue; however, accidents of fertility would ensure that occasionally the whole realm would be reunited under a single king; and even when multiple Merovingian kings ruled, the kingdom was conceived of as a single realm ruled collectively by several kings. In this way, the Frankish Kingdom resembled the later Roman Empire." Someone recently changed "Roman Empire" to "Holy Roman Empire". This is incorrect. The later Roman Empire was frequently ruled by multiple emperors, though they were conceived of as a college of rulers over a single realm -- and in this way (though not in all that many others), the Merovingian realm was like the later Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire, however, was always ruled over by a ''single'' emperor -- there was never a situation in which there were multiple Holy Roman Emperors. Even when the later Carolinians divided up Charlemagne's empire, there was alwyas only one emperor. --User:Jfruh 22:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) I just changed "later Roman Empire" to "earlier Roman Empire", because the Roman Empire was indeed earlier. However, this sentence originally stated "later Holy Roman Empire". I think the change to delete "Holy" was incorrect. So one may want to make that change, I'm not certain enough to do it. However, it clearly should either be "earlier Roman Empire" or "later Holy Roman Empire". :I'm the one who put the original Roman Empire comparison in and I'm tempted to take it out, because it seems to have caused such confusion. I apologize for using the word "later" as it seems to have really mixed people up. When I said "later Roman Empire", I don't mean to say that the Roman Empire existed after (i.e. later than) the Merovnigian kingdom; rather, I was referring to the Roman Empire of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries AD. This period is "later" compared to the "classical" period, not compared to the Merovingian kingdom. This terminology is common among Roman historians, but I can see how it's confusing here; thus, I'm going to restore my original text but change "later" to "late". :All I was trying to do was draw a metaphor between the late Roman Empire and the Merovingian kingdom, to clarify, rather than confuse. Perhaps I have failed. The Merovingian habit of having multiple kings for a theoretically united kingdom is similar to the Late Roman habit of having multiple emperors for a theoretically united empire. It is NOT similar to the Holy Roman Empire, which throughout its history did not allow for the concept of multiple co-reigning emperors. :For those who are still confused by the chronology, it goes something like this: :1st-2nd centuries: Early Roman empire :3rd-5th centuries: Late Roman empire :5th-8th centuries: Merovingian kingdom :Got it? --User:Jfruh 09:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) "THERE WAS ALWAYS ONLY ONE EMPEROR": I thought that there were times when there was no Emperor? :Yes, that's true. I guess I should have said "...there was always at most one emperor." Sometimes there were multiple ''claimants'' to the imperial throne, but everyone agreed that there could be only one ''legitimate'' Holy Roman Emperor (though they didn't always agree on who that emperor was). By contrast, there could be multiple legitimate Merovingian kings. :Hopefully this has not just confused everybody more. Sigh. --User:Jfruh 09:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Citation == This article was cited in "Secrets of the Code: The Unauthorized Guide to Mysteries Behind the Da Vinci Code" by Dan Burstein p. 365 HC 1st Edition 2004, as some of you may know. But anyone reading the book's mention of wikipedia could never find the quote unless they searched way back to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merovingian&oldid=953835] in the history. I believe this to be a flaw in wikipedia only because a vanishing source of information is unreliable and self-defeating. If the editors of the publication include wiki as source, the curious reader should have easy access. We tend to forget our freedom to edit over and over these articles seems to invalidate a printed source. If this makes sense, could you add some link to the history page listed above? On the lighter side, from the Twins in Matrix Reloaded: we are getting aggravated, aren't we? yes we are. User:BF 18:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) What about the West African People who to this day still have customes that mirror Hebrew customes but yet there is no mention of this fact,could they be directly decsended by blood from the original hebrews. A fact that is often overlooked is that after the fall of Israel,Hebrews migrated in great numbers to West Africa and along the East African Coast but I read no mention of them. In scipture the trials of the Hebrew People are written in detail, from slavery the loss of identity, children, homeland, culture,religion etc. It is my belief that these scriptures only apply the people known today as African Americans..not the French/Franks
{{Message_box| id =NPOV| backgroundcolor =AntiqueWhite| image =Stop_hand.png| heading =The Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View of this user's fundamental beliefs is Wikipedia:NPOV dispute.| message = Please see the relevant insanity on his : talk:.}} ''Hello!'' My name is Ryan W. I am 16 years old as of November 10, 2004, and I live in Juneau, Alaska, USA. I am "Merovingian". I have been a Wikipedian since November 8, 2003, and I am a Wikipedia:Administrators. I have over 5100 main-space contributions. I really like to help other users, so ''please'' gimme a shout at my User_talk:Merovingian. ==News== *I started the RuneScape Wikicity: [http://runescape.wikicities.com] ==Beliefs== ===Wikipedia=== *I am an m:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians. That means I want Wikipedia to be as large and complex as it can be. ===Other=== *I am an American conservativism. ==Me on other Wikimedia wikis== [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mero Meta-Wikimedia] - [http://sa.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mero Sanskrit Wikipedia] - [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mero Simple English Wikipedia] - [http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meronicus Latin Wikipedia] - [http://mg.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mero Malagasy Wikipedia] - [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Mero Wiktionary] ==Me on other wikis== [http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/User:Species_8472 Memory Alpha] - [http://www.greatestwiki.com/User:Merovingian GreatestWiki] ==Me on other websites== *[http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/mrsulu/ GreatestJournal, "mrsulu"] *[http://www.livejournal.com/users/renardius/ LiveJournal, "renardius"] (mirror of above site) ==Subpages== *User:Merovingian/sand *User:Merovingian/other ==Useful links== *Wikipedia:Requests for adminship *Wikipedia:Template messages *Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy *Wikipedia:Categorization *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Delete Candidates for speedy deletion] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/%21 List of all articles] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Merovingian My edits] *Wikipedia:Tutorial *Wikipedia:Stub categories ===Enjoyable sites=== *[http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Latin/ Latin translation] *[http://rinkworks.com/stupid/ Computer stupidity] *[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com Rush Limbaugh] *[http://www.glennbeck.com Glenn Beck] *[http://www.jimbotalk.net Jim Bohannon] *[http://news.google.com Google News] *[http://www.coastyocoastam.com Coast to Coast AM] *[http://www.scrappleface.com ScrappleFace] *[http://www.drudgereport.com Drudge Report] *[http://www.onlinecomics.net Online Comics] *[http://www.etymonline.com/ Online Etymology Dictionary] ---- All English Wikipedia main namespace articles or edits produced by myself are multi-licensed as described below. Any other namespaces are excluded. ''What ever happened to slackers? Least-likely-to-succeed, too-dazed-and-confused-to-think dot-com pioneers. They all work here!''
Archives: User:Merovingian/archive - User:Merovingian/2''Day three. Broke down and tried to edit everything in sight with a sledgehammer. Spent the night at police station. I fear that without aid I shall not last the winter.'' --User:Xiaopo
This talk page design was inspired by User talk:Alex S of User:Alex S
MEROVINGIAN
#REDIRECT Merovingian
Merovingian
:''For other uses of the term 'Merovingian', see Merovingian (disambiguation).'' The Merovingians were a dynasty of Franks kings who ruled a frequently fluctuating area in parts of present-day France and Germany from the 5th century to 8th century AD. They were sometimes referred to as the "long-haired kings" by contemporaries, though the significance of their long hair is not clear. The Merovingian dynasty (see List of Frankish Kings) owes its name to Merovech (sometimes Latinised as Meroveus or Merovius), leader of the Salian Franks from about 447 to 457, and emerges into wider history with the victories of Childeric I (reigned about 457-481) against the Visigoths, Saxons and Alamanni. Childeric's son Clovis I went on to unite most of Gaul north of the Loire (486). He won the Battle of Tolbiac against the Alamanni by adopting Roman Catholicism (496), and decisively defeated the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse in the Battle of Vouillé (507). Clovis on his death partitioned his kingdom among his four sons according to Frankish custom. Over the next two centuries, this tradition would continue; however, accidents of fertility would ensure that occasionally the whole realm would be reunited under a single king; and even when multiple Merovingian kings ruled, the kingdom was conceived of as a single realm ruled collectively by several kings. In this way, the Frankish Kingdom resembled the late Roman Empire. The Merovingian kings appointed magnates to be ''comites'', counts, charging them with defense, administration, and the judgement of disputes. This happened against the backdrop of the collapse of the centralized Roman system of administration and taxation and the disappearance of the old civil service structure as the Franks took over administration from the Romans. The counts had to provide armies; they enlisted them from their subordinates who were named knights and endowed with land in return for service. These armies were subject to the king's call for military support. The counts paid no money to the king, for there was little money in circulation. The king was expected to support himself with the products of his private, or royal, domain. The system developed in time to feudalism. Between 561 and 613, the various branches of the Merovingian house engaged in an intermittent and bloody war over the succession to the kingship, which ended with the family's standing notably diminished. By the 7th century century, the kings ceased to wield effective political authority and had become symbolic figures; they began to allot more and more day-to-day administration to a powerful official in their household called the ''maior domo'' or major-domo. This Latin title literally translates to "the greater one of the house"; the usual English translation is Mayor of the Palace, although this official was not a mayor in the modern sense of the word. The office of Mayor of the Palace itself became hereditary in the Carolingian family. Soon the Mayors were the real military and political leaders of the Frankish kingdom. This fact became manifest in 732 when an invading Arab army (Moors) from Spain was defeated by an army led not by the King, but rather by the Mayor Charles Martel. Charles' son, the Mayor Pippin III, gathered support among Frankish nobles for a change in dynasty. When the Pope appealed to him for assistance against the Lombards, he insisted that the church sanction his coronation in exchange. So, in 751, Childeric III, the last Merovingian, was deposed. He was allowed to live, but his long hair was cut and he was sent to a monastery. Merovingian coins are on display at ''Monnaie de Paris'', (the French Mint) at 11, quai de Conti, Paris, France. Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln put forth an pseudohistory of the Merovingians in their book, ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail''. ==See also== *List of Frankish Kings French history German nobility Royal families Franks
Merovingian
why is the matrix: reloaded villain called The Merovingian, then? Were the directors of this movie name-dropping esoterica or is there something deeper in their choice of words? Please forward any theories and analogies to elphteq@yahoo.com.au [250503] I removed the statement beginning, ''According to all major qualified historians ...'' which was (and still is) followed by the Britannica, a popular reference book, and the BBC. Where did they study? Exactly what university do they teach at? User:Danny I removed the ridiculous (and I say this advisedly -- there is no proof, and the scholarship in Baigent's book is not well-regarded. User:JHK Ms. JHK or whoever you are in real life, my work is not ridiculous. Please refrain from your continued degradation or leave Wikipedia because deleting proper text on your whim withgout foundation is unacceptasble and violates Wikipedia conventions. You did this yeaterday on Clovis and were wrong. Please stop. User:Triton ::I have to agree with Ms. JHK's deletion here, I would have done the same. No reputable scholar believes in the information she deleted. -- User:Zoe ---- Triton, I do not believe the bit I referred to as ridiculous (the bit about the Merovingian descent from Jesus Christ) was written by you, unless you have yet another name. It was that first removal I called ridiculous. Here are my explanations for editing your contribution. I reverted because I do not have time to pick through, and so feel it is better to revert to something trustworthy until properly thought out changes can be made. This is the paragraphy I had especial problems with: :"This repeated partitioning not only reaffirmed these new political units, but they also undermined the strength of the Frankish Empire, which was being raided at its frontiers. The Slavs and the Avars posed a threat on the northeastern frontier, the Lombards on the southeastern frontier and the Muslims on the southwestern frontier. In 613, the king of Neustria took control of the other two kingdoms and a united Frankish Kingdom was created with its capital in Paris." I am not 100%, but very close, that this is talking about the division of the Frankish Empire after Louis the Pious. I believe this because: #During the 6th c., the Slavs and Avars weren't really a threat. #This paragraph implies that the Muslims were a threat before 613 -- they weren't -- they COULD NOT HAVE BEEN -- Islam did not exist before right around 622.That is not true. Mohammed A.D.570-632 founder of Islam. RLM The latter part of the paragraph talks about a united Frankish kingsom -- correct for the Merovingians, but the earlier part talks about an Empire -- generally used only to refer to Carolingian Francia. These types of errors in editing are exactly why I felt it necessary to remove information from Clovis I until it had been verified. They are at best careless. User:JHK Muslims existed long before 622. Who says the that "During the 6th c., the Slavs and Avars weren't really a threat". You? What source, please. AND "an Empire -- generally used only to refer to Carolingian Francia" is more theories with "generally" and maybe and golly gosh. How about fact. The word Empire was used all the time. It is not specific to anyone. PuleezeUser:Triton Maybe, Ms JHK or whoever you really are, you should learn what Muslim means and what Islam means. Then put it with Wotan and presto you have learned something. User:Triton A question regarding the esoteric history regarding the descent from Jesus Christ and all that: obviously it is not true (that is, the Merovingians were not descendants of Jesus Christ), and obviously this is a later invention. But how much later? Is this a genuine (late) medieval tradition? A renaissance tradition? An enlightenment freemason type myth? A nineteenth century romantic "rediscovery"? Something that people made up when ''The Matrix Reloaded'' came out? In any event, the story is certainly out there, and I've seen it elsewhere. I think it should at least be referenced on wikipedia, although only if a) we have some idea what the origins of the story are; and b) clearly explain that the story arose much later, and is not true (in NPOV language) of course. User:Jlk7e 02:24 28 May 2003 (UTC) And, to Triton: Mohammed was born in 570 AD. He didn't even start founding Islam until 610. Its calendar starts in 622. Islam didn't leave Arabia until 634. It didn't reach Spain until 711. I find it hard to see how it could have been a threat to the Frankish kingdom from the west in 613 AD. User:Jlk7e 02:24 28 May 2003 (UTC) John, are you too joining in with derogatory remarks now? In any event, you too should learn what Muslim means and what Islam means. May the Prophet bless you, too. User:Triton What on earth are you talking about? User:Jlk7e 02:30 28 May 2003 (UTC) :Oh, and Islam means "Submission" and Muslim means "one who submits." But, again, what in the world does that have to do with the fact that Mohammed was sitting pretty in Mecca in 613 AD, and that Muslims were nowhere near the Frankish Kingdom until a century later? User:Jlk7e 02:31 28 May 2003 (UTC) Yes Muslims, were nowhere near the Frankish Kingdom in 613. But since the original paragraph mentions the southwestern frontier, what would now be Spain, maybe whoever contributed the text had mistaken them for the Visigoths? They did rule Spain at 613 and had earlier conflicts with the Franks. User: Dimadick ---- John -- the first time I saw this it was in Michael Baigent (sp?) ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail.'' I don't know how new it is, but I know the book got lots of laughs when I was in grad school. It's connected to legends about the Templar treasure and a village called Rennes-la-chateau. Recently, the legend made an appearance in ''Gabriel Knight 3'', a computer game that blended these legends with the idea that the Templars escaped to Scotland and somehow are connected to the house of Stewart and the freemasons. Katherine Kurtz has also picked up on some of these legends (mostly the Templar stuff) and combined it first with the Freemasons in her (with D.L. Harris) ''Adept'' series and also with Robert the Bruce and the Loch Ness Monster in ''The Temple and the Crown'' and ''The Temple and the Stone''. This is definitely esoteric legend rather than provable history. (I've read an awfeul lot on these guys -- none of this is ever mentioned, even as a possibility) I really think that we should omit any reference from the real history pages, unless you want to start a trend for every alternate history/fantasy to make its way into reality. Perhaps it would fit on a page on esoterica? User:JHK PS -- Triton -- do you actually know what derogatory means? You throw the word around a lot, but never seem to use it correctly. John: The Muslim threat never diminished from Philippe A II & Richard Lionheart. Tensions, threats, possible invasions were on and off for hundreds of years. And, what on earth is the person calling themselves JHK talking about? User:Triton ---- In regards to Empire versus Kingdom -- It's an Empire if it's ruled by an Emperor. The Frankish Kingdoms are never called an Empire until the coronation of Charlemagne in 800. I've never seen a Merovingian called an Emperor -- simply reges francorum -- kings of the Franks And that bit about Muslims being around in the 12th c. has nothing to do with the fact that they WERE NOT around before 711. Of course they were around till later -- till 1492 and the Reconquista, as a matter of factUser:JHK In terms of apocryphal stories, it seems to me that they ought to be talked about if they're actually genuine legends, and not something made up by twentieth century hucksters. For instance, I think that the page on Charlemagne ought to talk about the legend of Charlemagne, the Paladins, and all that stuff, or, at least, have some sort of link to that. The page on the Templars ought to have some material on the various legends of the Templars. And so forth. This legend sounds to be like one concocted fairly recently, though, and thus probably shouldn't be included. User:Jlk7e 03:11 28 May 2003 (UTC) :John, the legends, traditions & stories about Charlemagne & his Paladins should properly belong under Matter of France. Unfortunately, at present there is only a link to this topic in the article on Roland, & maybe another one at Ludovico Ariosto. It should be as easy to research & write an article on as on King Arthur. -- User:Llywrch 05:02 28 May 2003 (UTC) ::Yeah, the Charlemagnic legend coverage in wikipedia is rather weak at the moment. I don't know enough about it to write anything, at least not at the moment. But, I would say, that some mention of the legends ought to be made on the Charlemagne page. As in "after Charlemagne's death, a series of legends grew up around him and his 12 Paladins, bla bla bla, see Matter of France." User:Jlk7e 05:08 28 May 2003 (UTC) :Well, I took my first look at the Charlemagne page (gimme a break, please: there's over 120,000 articles & I'm still trying to find time to write the ones I want to, let alone read all of the ones of interest to me ;-), & made some changes -- including a link to Matter of France. Maybe someone will see the link there & start writing it. -- User:Llywrch 05:22 28 May 2003 (UTC) ::Oh, I certainly wasn't criticizing you in any way. There's so much work to be done on this thing, I sometimes don't know where to start. I'm sure it's like that for most of us, which is why we're doing this. User:Jlk7e 05:37 28 May 2003 (UTC) :No criticism taken, John. (Note the smiley.) It's just that you made an excellent suggesiton, & I figured there was no harm in having a look at the article & seing if I could insert the needed words in a minute or two. But you are quite correct about just how much work there is to be done. -- User:Llywrch 22:46 28 May 2003 (UTC) I don't think this is DW or Elliot, Julie. It appears that English is not this person's first language. -- User:Zoe :yeah -- it could be the 64/MammaBear person. I'm also not sure that it's not a native speaker writing above his/her level. Or maybe a non-native with a crappy pocket translator. Still, no amount of cultural difference excuses the level of rudeness this person seems capable of. Nice to hear from you, BTW!User:JHK Sorry Ms. JHK. would you please explain "''level of rudeness this person seems capable''"? If I'm rude please point it out to Mr. Wales. He does not tolerate that and I don't want any bad accusations against me. I'm still sad about you calling my sincere efforts "nonsense" or what was the latest, oh yes, "ridiculous." Maybe we should check with Mr. Wales and see if that is how we are to address each others efforts. Thank you. User:Triton you have had enough of my time and attention lately. you certainly don't deserve an answer. User:JHK Returning to the "ridiculous" story about Jesus as an ancestor of the Merovingians. Its only source seems to be the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" - 1982 by Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln and Richard Leigh.I haven't read the book but I have come across magazine articles who mention their "theory". It makes two claims actualy rather than one. First that the Merovingians were descended from Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, Second that "All true European royalty is descended from the Merovingians". It is certainly not a very serious attempt at history or geneology. But the book seems to have spawned a popular Conspiracy theory, and risen some interest in the Merovingians. At least a google search about "Jesus Christ Merovingians" came up with 800 findings. Some of them were even discussing about Kings of minor importance like Dagobert II. Maybe the article should mention the theory ,its source and that "No reputable scholar believes in the information" as Zoe put it. Mentioning it in that context doesn't make it a "fact". User: Dimadick If Gregory of Tours is our main source for the Merovingians he should also be mentioned in the article, along with his point of view in a matter of subjects. The following site does examine his work in that light:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gregory-hist.html. User: Dimadick Speaking of geneology there are many Internet amateur geneologists, claiming descent from Clovis and trying to trace his own descent. Should this be mentioned as in the article about Charlemagne? This is an example:http://www.pa.uky.edu/~shapere/dkbingham/d0005/g0000007.html#I21392. User: Dimadick :I think that stuff should be included in a "genealogical myths" section of an article on Genealogy. If they do a search, they'll find it, but the won't just glance at the page title and assume it's part of the history. If it's under genealogical myths, they'll know off the bat that it's not taken seriously. -- User:JHK ---- Um --- not really any clearer -- the original point of the statement could be clearer, but its intent was to differentiate from later patterns of inheritance, e.g. primogeniture -- wanna have a go at including that bit? I'm too tired and will probably forget. After all, division of property is one of the cool things about the Franks!User:JHK ---- Removed the conspiracy theory stuff -- looks like most of the people here agree it shouldn't be in the article, if you look at the conversation above. ---- Quite aside from this zany parahistory stuff, there is a long list of entries in 'What links here' that should be looked through for inclusion into the text here. User:Wetman 04:58, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC) == Peter or Paul? == "in order to gain power through the "spiritual" dynasty of Peter instead of the "holy blood" (i.e. Sangreal) of Mary Magdalene's descendants." Peter? Don't you mean Paul? Although I haven't read the book in question, If the "Roman Church" did anything to enhance a spiritual dynasty it would be the dynasy of Peter, not Paul. They RC church claims Peter as the 1st Pope and claims the the Bishop of Rome is Peter's heir and has inherited the authority given to Peter by Christ. ("On this Rock...). User:Dsmdgold 02:30, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Holy Blood, Holy Grail== Just wondering, but should we really have the entirely dubious pseudo-history of this book in what is otherwise a sensible article about a Frankish dynasty? Why not just say something like "The Merovingian dynasty is at the center of the esoteric history of bla bla blas' book Holy Blood, Holy Grail," and then discuss the rest of the theory in an article on the book. Given that absolutely no actual historians give any credence whatsoever to these nonsensical theories (whatever the fact that they are used in ''The Da Vinci Code''), I don't think these theories ought to be written about in any detail on this page. User:John Kenney 05:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) == I dont care about what happened, I want to know what people believed == Certainly (at the highest level of certainty a human being can have)the merovigians are not descendants of Christ or Mary Magdalene, but my question is, what did people at the time believed? Was at any century a sect that professed such ideas? ---- I moved the text on the ''Matrix'' character the Merovingian to a separate article. It really doesn't belong in an article about the historical Merovingian dynasty. Will create disambiguation page shortly. User:McMullen == Holy Roman Empire vs. Roman Empire == The article currently contains this text: "Clovis on his death partitioned his kingdom among his four sons according to Frankish custom. Over the next two centuries, this tradition would continue; however, accidents of fertility would ensure that occasionally the whole realm would be reunited under a single king; and even when multiple Merovingian kings ruled, the kingdom was conceived of as a single realm ruled collectively by several kings. In this way, the Frankish Kingdom resembled the later Roman Empire." Someone recently changed "Roman Empire" to "Holy Roman Empire". This is incorrect. The later Roman Empire was frequently ruled by multiple emperors, though they were conceived of as a college of rulers over a single realm -- and in this way (though not in all that many others), the Merovingian realm was like the later Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire, however, was always ruled over by a ''single'' emperor -- there was never a situation in which there were multiple Holy Roman Emperors. Even when the later Carolinians divided up Charlemagne's empire, there was alwyas only one emperor. --User:Jfruh 22:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) I just changed "later Roman Empire" to "earlier Roman Empire", because the Roman Empire was indeed earlier. However, this sentence originally stated "later Holy Roman Empire". I think the change to delete "Holy" was incorrect. So one may want to make that change, I'm not certain enough to do it. However, it clearly should either be "earlier Roman Empire" or "later Holy Roman Empire". :I'm the one who put the original Roman Empire comparison in and I'm tempted to take it out, because it seems to have caused such confusion. I apologize for using the word "later" as it seems to have really mixed people up. When I said "later Roman Empire", I don't mean to say that the Roman Empire existed after (i.e. later than) the Merovnigian kingdom; rather, I was referring to the Roman Empire of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries AD. This period is "later" compared to the "classical" period, not compared to the Merovingian kingdom. This terminology is common among Roman historians, but I can see how it's confusing here; thus, I'm going to restore my original text but change "later" to "late". :All I was trying to do was draw a metaphor between the late Roman Empire and the Merovingian kingdom, to clarify, rather than confuse. Perhaps I have failed. The Merovingian habit of having multiple kings for a theoretically united kingdom is similar to the Late Roman habit of having multiple emperors for a theoretically united empire. It is NOT similar to the Holy Roman Empire, which throughout its history did not allow for the concept of multiple co-reigning emperors. :For those who are still confused by the chronology, it goes something like this: :1st-2nd centuries: Early Roman empire :3rd-5th centuries: Late Roman empire :5th-8th centuries: Merovingian kingdom :Got it? --User:Jfruh 09:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) "THERE WAS ALWAYS ONLY ONE EMPEROR": I thought that there were times when there was no Emperor? :Yes, that's true. I guess I should have said "...there was always at most one emperor." Sometimes there were multiple ''claimants'' to the imperial throne, but everyone agreed that there could be only one ''legitimate'' Holy Roman Emperor (though they didn't always agree on who that emperor was). By contrast, there could be multiple legitimate Merovingian kings. :Hopefully this has not just confused everybody more. Sigh. --User:Jfruh 09:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Citation == This article was cited in "Secrets of the Code: The Unauthorized Guide to Mysteries Behind the Da Vinci Code" by Dan Burstein p. 365 HC 1st Edition 2004, as some of you may know. But anyone reading the book's mention of wikipedia could never find the quote unless they searched way back to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merovingian&oldid=953835] in the history. I believe this to be a flaw in wikipedia only because a vanishing source of information is unreliable and self-defeating. If the editors of the publication include wiki as source, the curious reader should have easy access. We tend to forget our freedom to edit over and over these articles seems to invalidate a printed source. If this makes sense, could you add some link to the history page listed above? On the lighter side, from the Twins in Matrix Reloaded: we are getting aggravated, aren't we? yes we are. User:BF 18:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) What about the West African People who to this day still have customes that mirror Hebrew customes but yet there is no mention of this fact,could they be directly decsended by blood from the original hebrews. A fact that is often overlooked is that after the fall of Israel,Hebrews migrated in great numbers to West Africa and along the East African Coast but I read no mention of them. In scipture the trials of the Hebrew People are written in detail, from slavery the loss of identity, children, homeland, culture,religion etc. It is my belief that these scriptures only apply the people known today as African Americans..not the French/Franks
Merovingian
{{Message_box| id =NPOV| backgroundcolor =AntiqueWhite| image =Stop_hand.png| heading =The Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View of this user's fundamental beliefs is Wikipedia:NPOV dispute.| message = Please see the relevant insanity on his : talk:.}} ''Hello!'' My name is Ryan W. I am 16 years old as of November 10, 2004, and I live in Juneau, Alaska, USA. I am "Merovingian". I have been a Wikipedian since November 8, 2003, and I am a Wikipedia:Administrators. I have over 5100 main-space contributions. I really like to help other users, so ''please'' gimme a shout at my User_talk:Merovingian. ==News== *I started the RuneScape Wikicity: [http://runescape.wikicities.com] ==Beliefs== ===Wikipedia=== *I am an m:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians. That means I want Wikipedia to be as large and complex as it can be. ===Other=== *I am an American conservativism. ==Me on other Wikimedia wikis== [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mero Meta-Wikimedia] - [http://sa.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mero Sanskrit Wikipedia] - [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mero Simple English Wikipedia] - [http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meronicus Latin Wikipedia] - [http://mg.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mero Malagasy Wikipedia] - [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Mero Wiktionary] ==Me on other wikis== [http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/User:Species_8472 Memory Alpha] - [http://www.greatestwiki.com/User:Merovingian GreatestWiki] ==Me on other websites== *[http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/mrsulu/ GreatestJournal, "mrsulu"] *[http://www.livejournal.com/users/renardius/ LiveJournal, "renardius"] (mirror of above site) ==Subpages== *User:Merovingian/sand *User:Merovingian/other ==Useful links== *Wikipedia:Requests for adminship *Wikipedia:Template messages *Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy *Wikipedia:Categorization *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Delete Candidates for speedy deletion] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/%21 List of all articles] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Merovingian My edits] *Wikipedia:Tutorial *Wikipedia:Stub categories ===Enjoyable sites=== *[http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Latin/ Latin translation] *[http://rinkworks.com/stupid/ Computer stupidity] *[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com Rush Limbaugh] *[http://www.glennbeck.com Glenn Beck] *[http://www.jimbotalk.net Jim Bohannon] *[http://news.google.com Google News] *[http://www.coastyocoastam.com Coast to Coast AM] *[http://www.scrappleface.com ScrappleFace] *[http://www.drudgereport.com Drudge Report] *[http://www.onlinecomics.net Online Comics] *[http://www.etymonline.com/ Online Etymology Dictionary] ---- All English Wikipedia main namespace articles or edits produced by myself are multi-licensed as described below. Any other namespaces are excluded. ''What ever happened to slackers? Least-likely-to-succeed, too-dazed-and-confused-to-think dot-com pioneers. They all work here!''
Merovingian
Archives: User:Merovingian/archive - User:Merovingian/2
Thank you for supporting my nomination for administrator. User:Wwoods 05:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems that it's necessary to get among the User pages in order to be an Administrator. Thanks for giving me your simple 'support', when others seem to want 'participation'. :-) User:Peter Ellis 06:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And another thank you from me for supporting my RfA! I shall attempt to put the shiny new buttons to good use. User:Mindspillage User talk:Mindspillage 02:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA, Merovingian. I will make sure not to disappoint you. User:Phils 19:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
==Khoisan languages Navbox==
Hey. Thanks for building the navbox. I've gone through the languages it lists, and placed the box on each one. I've categorised a few of them under Languages of Country X, as appropriate, too. I'll check back from time to time. --User:Kierano 10:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Goa ==
Hi!, sorry for the delay in responding, I had a major computer problem. Your edit:
''On May 21, 2003, Goa was the subject of the final question in the United States' National Geographic Bee. James Williams, a homeschooling eighth-grader from Vancouver, Washington, correctly guessed that the Indian state was a Portuguese possession until 1961.''
:wasn't encyclopedic enough. It does not say much on the state and is just a trivia sentence on a popular quiz contest. Since this is a Featured Article, its best to have relavent matter relating to the state on the page. == 18:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
==Maybe Katie==
Salve, Merovingian!
We haven't communicated in a while but I hope this message find you well. Lately I've not fared well with my FAC nominees, some failing to win even one support vote. I wonder if you would look at Katie Holmes and its nominationWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katie Holmes and offer your comments. User:PedanticallySpeaking 15:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) == 100% Bran == Now, I am User:NewGuy4 and I did the 100% Bran page. 100% Bran is totally discusting. You and I can both agree that there is nothing good in 100 % Bran at all. Thus, 100% Bran is 100% Crap. == :Image:AIW logo.png == Hey. Could you tag :Image:AIW logo.png with a license? Thanks. :) OvenFresh">User:Oven Fresh ²">User Talk:Oven Fresh 23:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== AIW ==
Hello. Are you the founder of the AIW? That has to be one of the greatest ideas in Wikipedia history!
I was wondering... I added a page currently in danger of deletion to the AIW page. Is there anything else I can do to bring this to the attention of Inclusionists?
- User:Pioneer-12 03:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Greatestwiki ==
You're basically rebuilding wikipedia? User:Vincent Gray 14:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== My adminship: thanks! ==
Hi Merovingian. Thanks very much for your vote for my RfA. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious and totally unilateral in all my admin affairs. I should say that I am very pleased at the number of people who supported me – it's very nice to know I'm making a positive impact. Cheers again, User:Smoddy User talk:Smoddy 21:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Search Engine Fraud ==
Hi, my name is Eran and I'm a sysop in the Hebrew Wikipedia (:he:משתמש:Eranb, also User:Eranb). I just noticed that User:Haham hanuka is pulling the same ploy he did in the Hebrew wikipedia - he published a list of words in order to raise his page's rank in Google (he also presents there the bios of several porn stars - the content he originally wanted to add to the Hebrew wiki, and was rejected by the community). This user has long ago been declared a troll by the Hebrew wiki, where his most notorious action was to replace the featured article's image (it was Leon Blum) with a pornographic one. We had enough of his pranks, curses, and defacments. I don't know what are the English wiki's rules about search engine fraud, but I hope you have such a policy. I'm not that familiar with the ropes in the English wiki, but I noticed that you were one of the person who edited his user page, so I would appreciate it if you could bring this to the attention of somebody thay can take appropriate action.
Thanks in advance,
==My adminship==
Thanks for supporting my successful RfA. I will do my best to live up to the responsibility and your trust. --User:Khaosworks 07:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:Eranb 17:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:(replied in my user page. Cheers User:Eranb 05:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))
According to that page, which contains a list of charges against Haham Hanuka, he would be most inappropriate as an admin. He has vandalized the Hebrew Village Pump and put pornographic content on the main page, among other things. User:Danny 10:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
==Thank you==
Hello, Ryan. Thanks for your vote at my adminship nomination. I appreciate the support. Cheers! — User:Trilobite (User_talk:Trilobite) 13:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== The truth ==
I never vandalise pages in the Hebrew wikipedia, Eranb is not telling the truth! Danny didn't say anthing about me, he worte about what's was written about me.
To prove that I'm right see my contributions here [http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%95%D7%97%D7%93:Contributions&target=%D7%97%D7%9B%D7%9D_%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%94]
--User:Haham hanuka 19:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For a translation of Haham hanuka's user page on Hebrew Wikipedia, see: User:Nadavspi/Haham Hanuka. --brian0918">User:Brian0918™">User talk:Brian0918 20:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I just glanced at it, and there are some issue with that translation. I'll attend to it soon. User:El C 00:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
==Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haham hanuka==
Please leave your own comments there, and sign your name endorsing the summary. Thanks. --brian0918">User:Brian0918™">User talk:Brian0918 21:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Thank you, Merovingian ==
For your vote of confidence in my RfA! Your newest admin, User:El C 00:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
== My RFA ==
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Although the voting period just ended with a 14-8-2 vote, I will admit once and for all that I used it more as an evaluation of myself. Being promoted would have been a plus. I was more interested in who voted, when they voted, who would change their votes and when, and the comments I would receive. Hopefully I will correct the main weakness that was raised by those who voted oppose -- that I was too eager to put articles on VFD. Also, I will try to interact more with those Wikipedians who did not vote at all.
As for next month, I don't know if I will nominate myself again. I might not think about it until somebody else puts me up there on RFA at a later date. Eventually, I see myself as an admin, especially as the number of articles and users continues to grow. Thanks again and good luck at improving this vast archive of free knowledge. User:Zzyzx11 User talk:Zzyzx11 09:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
== Blunders Vfd ==
Your vote on the List of incidents famously considered great blunders Vfd is currently listed in the "Ambiguous" column. (Probably incorrectly.) You voted "move" based on an early version of the article (since rewritten and expanded)..... I think "move" equals "keep but rename" but no one wants to falsely "interpret" your vote. Just letting you know.
- User:Pioneer-12 23:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
----
I don't think I asked the right question... Where do you you think your vote should go on the vote tally table? Should it go under "abstain/ambiguous" or should it go under "keep"?
- User:Pioneer-12 08:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
== Image:Andromeda_gendler_sm.jpg ==
I have listed :Image:Andromeda_gendler_sm.jpg as a copyright violation at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Ordinarily, you should be able to upload anything from Wikimedia Commons but, unfortunately, it appears that the original image upload to Commons was a copyright violation (see [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Andromeda_gendler_sm.jpg here]). Of course, you would have had no way to know this since the copyright status was questioned at Commons ''after'' you uploaded it here. Sorry. User:CoyneT User_talk:CoyneT 00:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
:Ok. I'm still learning this system and I misunderstood how the image was connected from Wikicommons. (As I now understand it, when it was uploaded to Wikicommons, it "magically" became part of Wikipedia -- right?) I mistook your registration of the image for "featured picture candidate" as the upload history. My apologies. User:CoyneT User_talk:CoyneT 22:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
== Your change to Pressed glass article? ==
Can you please explain why you changed the Pressed glass article to remove the "See Also" section where Carnival glass was listed? There are a few other types of pressed glass I had intended to place there. Unfortunately someone is flooding VfD, so I haven't had the time. --User:Unfocused 07:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
==Lists of genera by name==
Any idea when the empty lists of genera pages you created a couple months ago will get some content? The are somewhat annoying in that they are filling up Special:Shortpages. Also remember that pages containing only a template are speedy deletion candidates so there is a continued risk that someone might go through and delete them. - User:SimonP 14:08, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
== TfD nomination of Template:Table suffixes ==
Template:Table suffixes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Table suffixes. Thank you. — User:Xiong熊">Special:Emailuser/XiongUser talk:Xiong*">User:Xiong/Metatalk 10:35, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
==Adminship==
Many thanks for supporting my adminship, Merovingian. I like the POV sign on you user page :).--User:Wiglaf 21:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
==FAC Help==
Salve, Merovingian!
Haven't talked to you in a while; hope all is well in the 49th State. I've nom'd one of my articles at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob McEwen on Congressman Bob McEwen and though it's a bit outside your ambit, I would appreciate your comments there. User:PedanticallySpeaking 14:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC) == Vfd/Katie Jones == I'd like you to take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Katie Jones, since your one of, if not ''the'', original inclusionist(s). I am the creator of the page, as such I don't want the page deleted but my political sense tells me the debate could also be an important precedent in that the page involves not only the deletionist and inclusionist philosophies, but the merging compromise as well. The page is an atypical vfd nomination as it is a disambig page that exists in the place of redirects rather than articles, which where not possible given how common the name is. The question of notability has been brought into the debate, even though two of the people included should meet wikipedia's criteria for their own articles one is included in an article the other will be soon. I'd appreciate your thoughts or assistance. -User:JCarriker 16:14, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Merovingian:
MEROVINGIAN
Merovingian
Merovingian
Merovingian
Merovingian
Merovingian/2
Merovingian/archive
Merovingian/other
Merovingian/Req
Merovingian/sand
Merovingians
Merovingians
Merovingians
Merovingian_(disambiguation)
Merovingian_(Matrix_character)
Merovingian_Dynasty
Merovingian_Dynasty
Merovingian_Script
Merovingian_script
We haven't communicated in a while but I hope this message find you well. Lately I've not fared well with my FAC nominees, some failing to win even one support vote. I wonder if you would look at Katie Holmes and its nominationWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katie Holmes and offer your comments. User:PedanticallySpeaking 15:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) == 100% Bran == Now, I am User:NewGuy4 and I did the 100% Bran page. 100% Bran is totally discusting. You and I can both agree that there is nothing good in 100 % Bran at all. Thus, 100% Bran is 100% Crap. == :Image:AIW logo.png == Hey. Could you tag :Image:AIW logo.png with a license? Thanks. :) Oven
Haven't talked to you in a while; hope all is well in the 49th State. I've nom'd one of my articles at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob McEwen on Congressman Bob McEwen and though it's a bit outside your ambit, I would appreciate your comments there. User:PedanticallySpeaking 14:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC) == Vfd/Katie Jones == I'd like you to take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Katie Jones, since your one of, if not ''the'', original inclusionist(s). I am the creator of the page, as such I don't want the page deleted but my political sense tells me the debate could also be an important precedent in that the page involves not only the deletionist and inclusionist philosophies, but the merging compromise as well. The page is an atypical vfd nomination as it is a disambig page that exists in the place of redirects rather than articles, which where not possible given how common the name is. The question of notability has been brought into the debate, even though two of the people included should meet wikipedia's criteria for their own articles one is included in an article the other will be soon. I'd appreciate your thoughts or assistance. -User:JCarriker 16:14, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
M
MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |Words begining with Merovingian:
MEROVINGIAN
Merovingian
Merovingian
Merovingian
Merovingian
Merovingian/2
Merovingian/archive
Merovingian/other
Merovingian/Req
Merovingian/sand
Merovingians
Merovingians
Merovingians
Merovingian_(disambiguation)
Merovingian_(Matrix_character)
Merovingian_Dynasty
Merovingian_Dynasty
Merovingian_Script
Merovingian_script
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
