Pookster11

HELP US MAKING THE PROJECT OF ANCIENT GREEK WIKIPEDIA

We are the promoters of the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. we need your help, specially for write NEW ARTICLES and the TRANSLATION OF THE MEDIAWIKI INTERFACE FOR ANCIENT GREEK, for demonstrating, to the language subcommittee, the value of our project.

Thanks a lot for your help. Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία needs you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.197.5 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Boobykins as a source for Augustus....

Hmm. I'm as amused as you. On the other hand they haven't done their homework quite as carefully as they could have. As you know, at the very top of each of my page, a link that takes you to a FAQ (to forestall a lot of needless mail, but then I do give my e‑mail address there as well): and one of the items in that little laundry list is What Credentials I May Have. (It's not an impressive bag, at least not for ancient Rome.)

Since you yourself are a recent part of American history, don't know whether you've noticed the American and Military History section of my site, which is starting to get some breadth and depth to it; I'll be putting up a book on the San Francisco earthquake in the next few weeks, on the occasion of the upcoming centennial. Plenty more on the way. Best, Bill 01:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Talk Vote (again)

Please come by and vote. I think we're nearing a consensus that can stick. Also, since you are a Ph. D. candidate in history, can you help with the citations in notes 1, 2 & 3 in the article. I'm also especially interested in a cite to any credentialed historian that advocates the nonexistence hypothesis. No one seems to be able to produce one. --CTSWyneken 14:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Latin for Fun

Just thought you could use the comic relief: "nisi pluet, nunquam fluet." Bob--CTSWyneken 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Wars

I reverted back to your last edition before the full revert and also did some editorial changes. I am aware that I might have put some superflous references on why the Persian army was big. I am also aware that in English speaking literature of the last 100 years there is a concensus that the Persian forces were no more that 250,000 thousand. I did see the discussion page before the edits. I put up all the non-English references because there are few english-language sources that claim that the army was big. Writing only from English-language source creates bias (see Wikipedia:Bias) Sorry if my english is bad, though I lived two years in California when I was in middle school and I did write my thesis in English I cannot escape the fact that Greek is my mother tongue Ikokki 20:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Wikisource

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Caligula

Hello, Pookster 11. I'm confused about your reversion of the Caligula article. In the edit summary, you stated that there was no evidence of a copyright violation. Did you check the talk page for evidence? On the talk page, there is a link to this edit, which shows the material from this website being added. The copied content appears at times in red and at other times as regular text when there is nothing on the other side to compare it to. The copied content is still present in the article. It was mixed with existing content when it was posted and unfortunately has been blended in further since then. If the article is not reverted, the content must be removed manually. I started to do this before it was reverted, but it was very time consuming and I had to rewrite the content as I went because the article did not make sense with it removed. Below are two examples of the copied material. I removed a large section of copied content previously, too. If this is enough evidence of a copyright violation, I suggest that the article be reverted. -- Kjkolb 04:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Example 1

This text is nearly identical.

Roman Emporers

Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (b. A.D. 12, d. A.D. 41, emperor A.D. 37-41) represents a turning point in the early history of the Principate. Unfortunately, his is the most poorly documented reign of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The literary sources for these four years are meager, frequently anecdotal, and universally hostile. As a result, not only are many of the events of the reign unclear, but Gaius himself appears more as a caricature than a real person, a crazed megalomaniac given to capricious cruelty and harebrained schemes.

Wikipedia

Caligula represents a turning point in the early history of the Principate (this sentence comes from a different paragraph than the material below). Unfortunately, Caligula's reign is the most poorly documented of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The literary sources for these four years are meager, frequently anecdotal, and universally hostile. Roman historian Suetonius referred to Caligula as a "monster" (this sentence was not copied). As a result, not only are many of the events of the reign unclear, but Caligula himself appears more as a caricature than a real person; a crazed megalomaniac given to capricious cruelty and hare-brained schemes.

Example 2

This text has been modified.

Roman Emporers

Modern scholars have attempted to make sense of these events in various ways. The most reasonable suggestion is that Gaius went north to earn military glory and discovered there a nascent conspiracy under the commander of the Upper German legions, Cn. Lentulus Gaetulicus.

Wikipedia

Modern scholars have attempted to make sense of these events in various ways, the most reasonable suggestion being that Caligula went north to invade Britain and win where even Julius Caesar had been forced to retreat.

Greek_words_for_love reversal

I agree that very many references would be out of place in this article, and would belong on the agape article, but these three references in particular. I'd appreciate it if other editors would use the discussion page or contact me prior to reverting my edits - although only single sentence was added, I spent a quite a while working on the sentence and reading greek text of the New Testament, and it's a bit of an affront just to have it deleted the next day without so much as a by-your-leave. Don't mean to sound grumpy. Cheers :-) Oliver Low

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Nomination of Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)