Artoriusfadianus

You seem to have replied but I cannot see it. You are in danger of engaging an edit war which is against the rules. Perhaps put your reply in the talk section of the article so I can see it.

The last edit you made seems good for me. I bought and read this peer-reviewed work of Malcor, Faggiani and Trinchese and I cited its content. Thus, the readers will read "Missing Pieces" and will make their own opinion.

LOL - you didn't "buy it - you ARE Alessandro Faggiani! You're not fooling anyone who knows you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:493E:259E:9091:86C8 (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

New message

You seem to have deleted my first message. This makes discussing the issues difficult.

You seem to be presenting hugely speculative and false statements as fact. You seem to be doing this across multiple pages all connected to Lucius Artorius Castus. The reason appears to be to promote the fringe theory connecting the above historical figure with the later Arthurian legend.

You are now engaging in an edit war in an effort to keep unfounded and demonstrably false statements within certain articles.

Are you the user formerly called Luciuscastus or Linda Malcor? Are you one of the author's of missing pieces?

Happy to discuss it here or on the talk page of the article in question.

But you need to know I have reported this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonySullivanBooks (talk • contribs) 12:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm a reader or whatever I want to be. I deleted only your stuff in my own page.

Do you know what peer-reviewed means? Have you write any kind of this paper?

Well, this paper has the same weight and value of the authors cited in the page (Birley and so on). I found it interesting.

You can report what you want. I report real facts I read and not speculation as others do. Artoriusfadianus (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Artoriusfadianus (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the author of this paper. If I wrote something I could never promote my own work as others do. Cheers. Artoriusfadianus (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Artoriusfadianus (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to deal with one point at a time.

You keep writing "Armenios does not work"

This is not true. If it was true academics such as Birley, Tomlin, Davenport and Loriot would not accept that as the most likely interpretation.

So you can suggest Armatos fits but you cannot state "Armenios does not work". This is clearly false. This is why amended the erroneous statement. I would suggest simply state something like "Another suggestion is the word armatos.." or "Whilst many experts accept Armenios an alternative suggestion is armatos..."

But you should desist from making false statements such as "Armenios does not work". Because it clearly does that is why it is accepted by so many historians. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's another statement you inserted that is not true: "The Caledonii raided south of Hadrian's Wall, destroying almost half of the VI Victrix". Firstly the offending tribe is not named. Secondly which commander and unit was destroyed is not named. The contemporary writer Cassius Dio states this: “When the tribes in that island, crossing the wall that separated them from the Roman legions, proceeded to do much mischief and cut down a general together with his troops, Commodus became alarmed but sent Ulpius Marcellus against them… and he ruthlessly put down the barbarians of Britain Cassius Dio book 73.8

The troops posted along Hadrian's Wall (and the Antonine for that matter) were auxiliary units not VI Victrix which was based 70 miles to the south at York. There's zero evidence that any of the Sixth legion were involved let alone a claim "half of the VI Victrix" were destroyed. So all that can be said is there was an incursion and you could add archaeological evidence for the burning of some buildings at two of the forts along Hadrian's Wall and Corbridge two miles to the south. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Chiming in here as an uninvolved editor who has been following this dispute: There is no easy solution here. Editors on Wikipedia get into content disputes, and the onus is on these editors to reach a consensus on content for inclusion in an article. The Core Content Policies — neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research — are critical here. I am not a classicist qualified to speak to the specific content of the dispute at hand; however, insofar as there are published, peer-reviewed authors who argue X, X is fair game for an article.

In accordance with the norm of neutrality, content in an article, however, should be careful not to provide WP:UNDUE weight to specific sources. If one reliable sources argues X, but five argue Y, the bulk of an article should be spent discussing Y, and should not provide false equivalence between X and Y.

TonySullivanBooks — if you want to to fix content in an article, you are going to have to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia interface and editing norms and work to make those edits yourself. You are going to have a very hard time finding editors willing to serve as a proxy for you on topics as specialized as this. Editing can be tricky at first, but there are tutorials to help you get your grounding and the Teahouse where you can ask questions. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for an idea of what editing the Lucius Artorius Castus article will likely look like. As of now, the article does not seem to be in an active edit war.

Note that given that Artoriusfadianus has declared no conflict of interest, given the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise, we must accept their word for it. (Their editing history is not consistent with an account used for promotionalism. It is not a violation for an author to cite their own work, though they are strongly encouraged to declare if they are doing so.)

Returning to the core content policies above, I would like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a platform for original research — even if it is, in fact, true. The Lucius Artorius Castus article relies heavily on primary sources, which can present problems with original research policy. Wikipedia is not a place to litigate academic disputes; rather, we describe those disputes. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 13:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the advice. I will do my best... TonySullivanBooks (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTDUMB, messages like this [[1]] often lead to responses of "you're most likely correct". Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Who are these two messages you put on this page to? And what do they mean? If they are to me you will have to be clearer and use plain English. I do not understand what these symbols and acronyms mean? TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Also read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I see that Tony Sullivan reverts the edits of all the user. Tony Sullivan is not allowed to revert. As explained time ago, I found interesting the peer reviewed article of Malcor and I put those information in Wikipedia. Artoriusfadianus (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You can clearly see I am not the one making the recent edits.

TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. If you are not making the recent edits, I ask the editors to stop this behaviour because everyone knows (and it's written in the comments) those information came from a peer reviewed article on JIES. Maybe the anonymous user is Gwinn. If Wikipedia will revert again I think it won't need my contributions. So, I ask them to delete my account. Thanks. Artoriusfadianus (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you have one article published in one obscure journal. All that matters are the facts. You repeatedly post things that go against the evidence: The Sixth legion lost half their force; Armenios is 'impossible'; the claim you have similar inscriptions for armatos; a precise date for Castus. All these things and many more are your speculations posted as fact. By all means put your evidence in the talk section and let others do the same. Then more experienced editors can make a decision, like the one recently who actually helped create the page. Kindly stop putting your highly disputed fringe theories in and deleting stuff that states the academic consensus or known facts. I've looked at the article you quoted and in my opinion it's riddled with errors and is hugely speculative. TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no article. I paid for it. I see there is a user who reverts your edits.Good!. Now I login and start the war. You won't win. Wikipedia has to delete my profile. So, you can win the battle but not the war. This behaviour is against the use of Wikipedia. The above statements have to be proved but you can't. You have no evidence. Artoriusfadianus (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Place your arguments in the talk page of the article and stop changing the edits made by one of the original creators and curators of the page. We know perfectly well the accounts making these changes are from Linda, Alessandro and Antonio, the authors of the article you are trying to promote. By all means place your proposed changes in the talk section, allow others to comment and then let an editor decide. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Tony Sullivan says that the original version doesn't include Malcor article. These new information were added in the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020. Two years have passed and I think these information are consolidated. I don't know if an article published in JIES have to be ignored. Does Sullivan know what JIES is?

Tony Sullivan follow the advice of WhinyTheYounger (WtY) in April 28. Artoriusfadianus (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I ask wikipedia to stop Tony Sullivan. Or is this 'good' man a friend of Wikipedia. Is wikipedia serious or not? Artoriusfadianus (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Place your arguments on the talk page and allow others to respond. You can't just insist the information in one disputed article from an obscure journal is correct. I happen to have read it and found it very poor and riddled with errors. So let's just debate the facts and evidence in the talk page. TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that the authors of Missing Pieces don't need the approval of Tony Sullivan or Wikipedia since Sullivan never wrote a peer reviewed article. Even the users who revert these edits don't know how JIES is and what peer review means. Artoriusfadianus (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I am Linda A. Malcor. I have a Ph.D. in the field of Arthurian Studies from UCLA, and I have been publishing about Lucius Artorius Castus in academic presses and peer reviewed journals since the 1980s. I have NOT been making changes to Wikipedia, despite Tony Sullivan's accusations, but I will defend my work. I am an internationally known scholar, and my work is well received in multiple languages. Tony Sullivan started publishing in 2020 after a career as a firefighter, and he has recently published a book that, among other things, criticizes my work. In order to promote his book, he has been having mentions of my hypotheses deleted from Wikipedia although he covers it extensively in his book. He is conducting a vendetta, and I believe that my work should be presented on Wikipedia so that readers know that there is another view about the career of Lucius Artorius Castus exists other than the two he prefers. I have a book about Castus co-authored with the scholar John Matthews coming out in the near future, and I will NOT be deleting the views Sullivan supports. I ask that he refrain from requesting that my work be deleted. --Shashtah (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

None of this is relevant. Only facts and evidence matters.

Post your comments on the talk page with everyone else and allow a consensus or an editor/moderator to decide.

I'm not putting anything about any of my books on here so can't be accused of promoting anything.

But you should not post hugely speculative or demonstrably false statements as fact.

We can have those discussions about each individual point on the talk page.

In the meantime stop changing the page set by the original creator/curator. Any changes you make without discussion and agreement on the talk page will likely be reversed. TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The Lucius Artorius Castus hypothesis is known in Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Georgia, Turkey, Iran, Albania, Croatia, Hungary, Germany, France, Italy, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, the US, and Canada. It is not fringe. It is an established point of view that has been around from the nineteenth century, with the Armatos addition being made in 2019 in a peer-reviewed Journal (JIES). It deserves to be presented along with the other arguments. Shashtah (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The JIES does not specialise in Roman epigraphy and as far as we can tell the paper was not peer reviewed by experts in Roman inscriptions. The leading European expert on Roman inscriptions, RSO Tomlin, explains why the correct reading is Armenios (Tomlin, 2018: 155-7). I'd like to see an argument as to why you think he is incorrect.

Birley, a leading expert in Roman Britain states Armenios 'must' be preferred (Birley, 2005: 355)

Xavier Loriot in 1997 details why Armenios is the correct reading. (Loriot, 1997: 85-6).

Professor Higham devotes a chapter to Artorius Castus (Higham, 2018: 13-39) and explains specifically why Armenios is the preferred reading and why the other alternatives are ‘implausible’ (Higham, 2018: 21)

I would like to know why these experts are all incorrect and why you did not get your paper peer reviewed in a journal that specialises in Roman epigraphy and by experts in that subject?

Birley, Anthony, The Roman Government of Britain, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005).

Higham, N.J., King Arthur The Making of the Legend, (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2018).

Loriot, Xavier, Un mythe historiographique : l’expédition d’Artorius Castus contre les Armoricains (Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France, 1997), Pg. 85-86

Tomlin, R.S.O., Britannia Romana, Roman Inscriptions and Roman Britain, (Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2018). TonySullivanBooks (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Bradley Skeen’s article, L. Artorius Castus and King Arthur, in the same journal responds to the claims made in the article by Linda A. Malcor, Antonio Trínchese, and Alessandro Faggiani, in their 2019 article, Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription.

He confirms LAC's post was a praefectus castrorum of Legio VI Victrix. He accepts there is no way to assign dates beyond Antonine to Severan but suggests an earlier date before 170 is more likely.

Regarding the claims by Malcor et al:

Malcor’s reading of the text confuses dative and nominative case leaving their interpretation "without parallel in Latin epigraphy”.

Malcor’s position on praepositus is "entirely unsupported”.

Regarding dux they have a "misunderstanding about the term".

Regarding date there is "very little foundation" for Malcor's chronology.

Malcor’s reading of the last two lines of the inscription are "simply without precedent” and “it is impossible to accept this reading”.

Concerning Armatos it has "little justification”.

He notes their dismissal of the initial excavation report by F. Carrara (1851/52) which showed that the M before the break is in ligature with an E. Skeen agrees with Tomlin, Birley, Loriot and others in finding the reading of ARME[NIO]S "secure".

And it follows the most likely scenario is he led detachments rather than whole legions.

Concerning alleged contact with Sarmatians Skeen states the cursus lacks any such appointment and "there is no other evidence for any part of the assertion".

The wider theory involving LAC leading Sarmatian warriors is "entirely unsupported since there is no evidence of any such campaign".

The connection between LAC and Sarmatians "can only be asserted without evidence".

Even "more damning for Malcor et al.’s interpretation” is the absence of reference to dux on the sarcophagus inscription. Which strongly suggests their interpretation of the inscription and his career is untenable.

Finally he concludes Malcor et al.’s contention that the genesis of Arthurian mythology was the repurposing of national Sarmatian mythology (cognate with the Nart sagas) as praise of Castus is "no more convincing than it ever was".

Skeen, Bradley, L. Artorius Castus and King Arthur, JIES Vol. 48, Iss. 1/2, (Spring/Summer 2020): 61-75 TonySullivanBooks (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Artoriusfadianus. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)