User talk:Nicknack009/Archive4

Massacre of the Ninth Legion

I'm going to try to be nice here. Does wikipedia and its users have a thing for deleting new articles? Just because the idea of a rabble overrunning the highly-disciplined Romans, you put a deletion tag on it? You CLAIMED that the article is historically inaccurate, yet you did not put ANY evidence on it to prove me wrong. It was from a BBC not ITV history program, and all of the other history programs have been accurate, this one actually used historical sources from historians, and YOU are trying to tell me it is inaccurate. I bet if it was a different story, of a rabble overrunning English soldiers or something then it would be an approved article. Though Wikipedia is stated to be a non-propaganda website there is propaganda everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trip Johnson (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave you the source. I've said it before, if you're not prepared to read the ancient sources, which are nearly all online, you have no business editing articles on ancient history. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Boudica

Hi,

In you edit comment you suggested you didn't agree with my IPA changes, but you didn't fix anything. I've been cleaning up the IPA (on thousands of articles), and in this case had a hard time understanding what the passage was trying to say. I tried 'clarifying' the wording, but it may now be completely wrong. Please let me or the Talk page know what I may have missed. Thanks, kwami (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Alan Moore

Hi Nick! I left a rationale for the deletion on the page. I am routinely removing external links, so I do not leave a long rationale for each. Please see the discussion there.--Legionarius (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

routinely removing external links that do not conform to WP:EL.--Legionarius (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cessair and Annals of the Four Masters

There's some inconsistency in the dating of the Deluge (mythology) on the two pages. Probably other pages. Fintan was supposed to departed the mortal realm after 5500 years of existence in 550 AD putting the deluge in 5000 BC or 4960 BC assuming he's about 40 at the flood time. I'm just trying to stay with the information from AFM to determine the date. Where did you get the date of 2958 BC? Is it explicitly printed or calculated? What print source can we see the date listed? I'm going to tag the dates because of this. I got interested in the page after reading Morgan Llywelyn's The Elementals (novel). The first quarter of the book is on the Element water and is a misrepresented tale of the Cessair story. Alatari (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Annals of the Four Masters dates the flood to Anno Mundi 2242, and the birth of Christ to AM 5194. The Four Masters' date for the flood is therefore 2952 years before AD 1, i.e. 2951 BC. Cessair is supposed to have arrived seven years before the flood, i.e. 2959. I don't know where Fintan's death date of 550 or his age as 5500 comes from, but it's not the Four Masters. The sources for both dates are given, with links, under "References", so I've reverted the fact tags. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to the actual pages describing the dates will be nice so I'll add them. The only reference I find to 5500+Fintan through the Celtic portal is written in Gaulic which I can't read. Maybe the Fintan article needs correction on his age. It seems pretty sure about his time as a salmon and his advising Kings until the 5th century. I find that fact listed on many pages but none seem scholarly sources. It will take me hours or longer to clear this up but you might be able to do it much more quickly. Alatari (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There may well be a medieval Irish source which gives those dates for Fintan, but it's not wise to expect consistency in this - chronology is not Irish mythological tradition's strongest point, as you might expect from a fairly diverse bunch of people over a long period of time trying to synchronise native traditions with what they knew of biblical and classical history. For example, the Lebor Gabála Érenn, the oldest attempt to create a chronology for Irish historical traditions, dates the accession of Labraid Loingsech exactly to Christmas Eve, 307 BC, but also says he ruled at the same time as Ptolemy III Euergetes in Egypt (who ruled 242-246 BC). Keating dates his accession to 379 BC, the Four Masters to 542 BC. That's a margin for error of 300 years, and it gets bigger the further you go back. --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Egads, well I added the links to the dates so that any reader can verify the calculations. Even seeing the actual text it's a bit confusing. The dating of the Biblical flood is a controversial subject and it's always best to be explicit. IMO, this isn't Morgan's best novel but like most of her works there is basis in history/mythology. Onto her Fire story. Alatari (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The flood in Irish tradition is interesting - I did a night class in Irish archaeology a while back, and the similarity between Irish traditions of the period after the flood and the archaeological account of Ireland after the last Ice Age were quite striking. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Her Fire short story is set in Crete and much better tale. I love the way she adds little details on the minutia of the characters life. That was sorely missing from the Cessair tale. Wonder if the vagueness was intentional? Alatari (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Her common thread through these stories appears to be following the descendants of Kessair. Alatari (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've update the pages at Annals of the Four Masters to match that source (rather than other documents), after checking with Alatari. Re consistency, actually I'd expect that the creation dates in the myths as recorded by monks are likely to match the teachings of the church, with everything else made to fit; hence the date in the Annals matches that given by Eusebius and Jerome. I'd expect this is pointed out in a reliable source somewhere. --Bazzargh (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hu Gadarn

Hi, and thanks for your edits on Hu Gadarn. I've added some sources as well. Can I make you an honorary member of the Celtic Mist Patrol? Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that like a crack hit-squad on guard against nonsense on Celtic subjects? I'd be proud to be a member! --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account, because after a review of some of your contributions it appears that we can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: and believe you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Rollback feature and Rollback school. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. NoSeptember 05:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Claudia Rufina‎

Why? Because unless she died before the age of 10, she lived beyond the decade of the 90s, it's not more exact. And for another reason, the 90s wiki article linked has nothing to do with when she lived. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So? Include what's known. We know she lived in the 90s. If we generalising that to the whole century, someone reading the article could be misled into thinking she was was a contemporary of Augustus. Specifying the 90s gives the reader more, better and more specific information. The 90s article may not tell you anything more about her, and neither should it. It's there to give context to the times she lived in. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. In my cursory look at the 90s, I misread it to assume it referred to the 1890s and 1990s. I think it still could be made more clear. For example, the article discusses claims she was addressed in Timothy, which, like her association with Martial dating her to the 90s, would date her to the 60s as well. But I was confused by misreading the wikilink, which is my mistake not yours. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Builg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Builg, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Builg. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Celts

Thank you so much for joining, your knowledge is most welcome here! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Agathoclea (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You have accused me of edit warring on Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar. If you look at the edit history, you will see that an anonymous editor, who has history of only editing this one article, and of only making destructive edits, has been repeatedly removing valid content. He/she is not prepared to discuss, simply to declare that the material should be removed, and only after he/she has removed it. His/her deletions have now expanded from the fake quote section to the ancient and medieval sections. I have done my best to maintain the article with no support whatever from other editors - the only other reversion of this anonymous user's vandalism (and I stand by that description) has come from a bot. If you are watching the article, then give the constructive editor a hand. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad it has died down now - thank you. I have no opinion on the actual content of the article in question, but it was obvious that the blankings where editorial rather than vandalism - as such simply reverting will not be the answer. The fact that a bot cannot distinguish between the two makes it slightly more difficult, but a human should know the difference. There are various means to sort the situation given time and dialog. Agathoclea (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 16:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Nicknack009

Hi Nick how are you doing.

Thanks for your quick reply to my comment on Caesar's discussion page, the way Caesar's page is constructed makes it look like as if Caesar is the one who invaded Gaul. This is not about being pro-Roman or anti-Roman, this is about "all you need to do is keep your eye on that card" and most people don't do that.

Look here Man.

I've seriously investigated the Usipetes Tencteri situation, what these people have done is very bad. If you talk about Usipetes & Tencteri, then you talk about all best warriors put together in 3 groups and then spread up to conquer more ground. These people murdered unarmed civilians and took over entire villages, not leaving behind a trace of the previous inhabitants.

This is criminal.

It doesn't matter if you are pro or anti Roman, this is about justice & truth. Because Caesar's forces in Gaul were officially at peace before the German invasion, Caesar's forces in Gaul also were at peace during the German invasion. But these barbarian looters & sackers made agreements to Caesar and deliberately broke their own agreements, If I call these folks barbarian looters & sackers; then it means they mass murdered unarmed civilians, took over entire villages, plundered villages, stole grain supplies, attacked Caesar's cavalry & murdered Roman nobles.

That's not friendly and I want to be sure you understand me correctly.

Sincerely, Phalanx Pursos 18:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Caesar page makes it look like Caesar invaded Gaul because Caesar did invade Gaul. His assigned command was Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul - northern Italy and southern France - and he took control of the rest militarily. You may think he was right to invade, but you can't deny that he did.

And ancient history, especially ancient military history, is full of people doing terrible things. Moral indignation against one group or another is futile. Report what happened. I have rewritten the article with less editorialising. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir I really appreciate your perspective, personally do I want military commanders to be admired for their Humanitarian missions. Cyrus of Persia and Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus were strategists who supported Humanitarian mission, also Caesar is with those strategists who has provided protective Roman law & citizenship and also Humanitarian missions. But in Caesar's case is it different because he was accused of war crimes by the Roman senate regarding the Usipetes-Tencteri situation, that's why I find it rather difficult to talk about Caesar.

Military strategist have to support Humanitarian missions to make themself look better.

Sincerely, Phalanx Pursos 19:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Searching for documents about Caesar's conviction

I am looking for documents about Caesar's conviction by the Roman senate prior to the Roman/Gaul conflict, these documents are a confession from Caesar himself in where he explains that his forces barracked in Gaul were not allowed to attack. These documents also explain that the Roman senate sent investigators to the besieged settlement of the Menapians, in where Caesar is accused of war crimes by the Roman Senate. Phalanx Pursos 20:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand completely what happened. The "Roman/Gaul conflict" had been underway for three years before the Usipetes and Tencteri invaded in 55 BC. In his Commentarii de Bello Gallico (Book 4 Chapters 1-15), which is not a "confession" but an account of his campaigns, Caesar describes how he levied cavalry and supplies from the Gallic tribes and marched against the invaders, only to grant them a brief truce as the two armies approached each other. According to Plutarch, the Senate voted "sacrifices of rejoicing" for his victory, but Cato, his opponent in the senate, is to have "pronounced the opinion that they ought to deliver up Caesar to the Barbarians" (Plutarch, Caesar Chapter 22.4), because "it was believed that he had attacked the Germans even during a truce", but that Caesar sent a letter to the senate defending his actions and denouncing Cato (Plutarch, Cato Chapter 51), and despite Cato giving a powerful speech against Caesar in response to this letter, nothing further was done. He was not accused of war crimes by anyone other than Cato, who hated him, and he was not convicted of anything. The letter referred to has not survived. The Senate did not send anyone to Gaul to investigate these events, they merely debated them in Rome.

Also, if you think any of Caesar's campaigns were "humanitarian missions" I suggest you read Caesar's commentaries. He writes to present himself in the best light, but he doesn't present himself as a humanitarian. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly; Caesar was Rome's best military commander, but the incapability which surrounded that Man is just antagonising.

I am a happy Man knowing that I've spent my time learning about justice & truth.

Phalanx Pursos 01:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Caesar copyright

Thanks for pointing out that copyright infringement. Let's think about it as the ultimate tribute...Jona Lendering (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tug&buster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tug&buster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it to Marc Hempel. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Calleva

I have nominated Calleva, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calleva. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Booglamay (talk) - 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

GAR for Alan Moore

Since you are a major contributor to Alan Moore, I am notifying you that I have placed a WP:GAR on the article's talk page. If you have a chance, please take a look at it. If the issues that I have brought up have not been resolved, I will remove the Good article status from the article. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Polytheism massacre

The Celtic polytheism article has been spiralling out of control for quite a while now. Today I checked in to find that someone well-meaning, but not overly familiar with the subject, has been making sweeping changes, including page moves and branching new articles off. I don't know how much time I'm going to have to address this, but we really, really need more experienced eyes on this. HELP. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur

Do you relly think your edit was neutral? What is it that you disagree with in the Berresford-Ellis reference too? It seems to me you did your edit just to rile me! WikieWikieWikie (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Rile you? My edit is completely agnostic on the question of Arthur's existence, and therefore neutral. The only people who find agnosticism threatening are fundamentalist believers, which appears to be what you are. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)