139.184.30.132 (talk) |
Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk | contribs) m →February 2010: remove |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
Thanks for the message. :) |
Thanks for the message. :) |
||
[[User:Gaius Octavius Princeps|Gaius Octavius Princeps]] ([[User talk:Gaius Octavius Princeps#top|talk]]) 13:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:Gaius Octavius Princeps|Gaius Octavius Princeps]] ([[User talk:Gaius Octavius Princeps#top|talk]]) 13:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] You currently appear to be engaged in an '''[[WP:Edit war|edit war]]'''{{#if:Unite Against Fascism|  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Unite Against Fascism]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[WP:PP|page protection]]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[Special:Contributions/139.184.30.132|139.184.30.132]] ([[User talk:139.184.30.132|talk]]) 02:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:40, 22 March 2010
Brutus coin and the issue of his name
Hi there. The current text on the Brutus page runs "Brutus also later used the name [Caepio Brutus] officially on at least one occasion after Caesar's death [Refs to Q. CAEPIO BRVTVS coin] though it appears this was to honour his adoptive father as he also issued coins in his original name at this time". This last assertion is refed with a link to the famous EID MAR coin. The trouble is, the EID MAR coin bears only BRVT IMP, so this means nothing either way. Note also that Cicero refers to Brutus by his adoptive name in a couple of his letters. Thus "Caepio Brutus" in Ad Att. II.24.2 (Aug 59) and "Q. Caepio" in Ad Fam. VII.21 (June 44). Cheers! Catiline63 (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice one Catiline, good work! Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!! 8o) Catiline63 (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Agincourt
Very good edits! Bravo! Trilobitealive (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
Awarded on October 25, 2009 to User:Gaius Octavius Princeps for their work on Battle of Agincourt.Trilobitealive (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC) |
- Hi, thanks for your defence of the Battle of Agincourt page while a couple of us who have it on our watch page were away. As I imagine you've realised, the NY Times piece simply repeated the controversy, there was nothing new here (and even that piece quotes an American historian who disagrees with Curry). Occasionally Curry's theory gets another run in the newspapers, this is the third time that I recall. The biggest problem with it (as touched on in the Times piece) is whether the surviving administrative records are an accurate reflection of who was at the battle.
- We've started a couple of discussions on the talk page about the changes which have been made; would you be able to contribute? Thanks, merlin --Merlinme (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please contribute to a discussion on the talk page of Battle of Agincourt? You've reverted my edits on the numbers to use Barker; Barker's numbers are probably even more wrong than Curry. You don't seem to have taken in that I've based my recent edits on Mortimer, i.e. the most recent research by someone who's had a chance to evaluate what Curry has done, and broadly supports her conclusions. You've made the "Numbers" section harder to read with little justification that I can see other than to give the impression that Curry is against all other historians, when in fact the majority of recent work I've seen has been closer to her position than Barker's. To be honest I'm quite annoyed that you've not made any entry on the talk page, even after I specifically asked you to a month ago. In the meantime I'm reverting the Barker numbers to use Mortimer's numbers. Note, not Curry's numbers. --Merlinme (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is the fourth time I've asked you to contribute to a discussion on the numbers at Agincourt. I'd prefer to have it on the Talk:Battle_of_Agincourt page so others can contribute, but we can have it here or on my talk page if you prefer. We're not going to get anywhere if we keep reverting each other's edits. I'm happy to be persuaded that Curry is in a tiny minority, but you have so far offered no evidence of this, and until you do, I will keep reverting. I have never got into a revert edit war with anyone, in years of active editing on Wikipedia. But you are making it very difficult if you won't engage in a discussion. --Merlinme (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please contribute to a discussion on the talk page of Battle of Agincourt? You've reverted my edits on the numbers to use Barker; Barker's numbers are probably even more wrong than Curry. You don't seem to have taken in that I've based my recent edits on Mortimer, i.e. the most recent research by someone who's had a chance to evaluate what Curry has done, and broadly supports her conclusions. You've made the "Numbers" section harder to read with little justification that I can see other than to give the impression that Curry is against all other historians, when in fact the majority of recent work I've seen has been closer to her position than Barker's. To be honest I'm quite annoyed that you've not made any entry on the talk page, even after I specifically asked you to a month ago. In the meantime I'm reverting the Barker numbers to use Mortimer's numbers. Note, not Curry's numbers. --Merlinme (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
What exactly would you prefer? Do you want an article solely based on Curries work?
The most recent edit I made simply toned down the curry centric slant of the article, her numbers are still included as are her arguments.
Looking at the edit history of the article, you have been pushing curry as a definitive guide to numbers involved for quite a long time. Her views are not supported by the vast majority of historians, as I'm sure you are aware, therefore the majority view (of a large French force V's a small English force) is represented too, along with supporting refs.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I still don't think you understand what my position is, although I've tried on several occasions to explain it. See further up this page for where I thanked you for removing the Curry bias after the Glanz article appeared. I supported the Barker figures until very recently, as less contentious than Curry, even though I thought the methodology to produce the 36,000 figure was dubious. I have consistently supported the inclusion of a section addressing Curry's work, discussing the controversy, representing her as a minority view, because Curry is a recognised expert in the field, and because she's written one of the most recent books on the subject. Very recently (i.e. since I got hold of a copy of Mortimer's book) I have started supporting his figures, as he has had an opportunity to assess Curry's work, and has come down much closer to her version than to Barker's. You keep stating that Curry is not representative of "the vast majority of historians", but which historians do you mean, exactly? The only one I am aware of who has considered Curry's research in detail, at book length, is Mortimer. He finds her guilty of exaggeration of a few hundreds for the English, and a few thousands for the French, which is where we get figures of eight to nine thousand for the English and twelve to fifteen thousand for the French (not 9,000 and 12,000, as Curry has it). You keep saying that I support Curry's figures, but I don't. As I've tried to say several times, I support Mortimer's figures, as the only historian to have written a book length work which critically assesses Curry's figures.
- If there were lots of other historians who had in the last four years said that Curry's figures were rubbish, even outside of a book, I would be more cautious. However I'm only aware of a short note in Barker (written without any research, although she makes valid points), and Rogers, in a newspaper article. His figures for the French (where he includes a "gros valet" per man-at-arms) are arguably the same as Mortimer's.
- You keep saying "the vast majority of historians", but who, exactly? Especially among modern historians. Please could you provide some references.
- Thanks for finally having a discussion, anyway.--Merlinme (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Curry/Mortimer's numbers are noted in the article alongside the traditional view that the French heavily outnumbered the English with refs. I don't understand what your complaint is. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- My problem is your unsupported claims that "the vast majority" of historians support Barker's figures, which are now given the most prominent position in the Info box. The Info box is currently a mess; I'm not aware of any other which gives the figures as an "Or", as if it's a binary position, either 12 to 15 thousand, or 36,000. If we must present them like this, they should be presented as a range, e.g. "modern historians' estimates range from ~12,000 (ref) to ~36,000 (ref). See Numbers at Agincourt." --Merlinme (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Isandlwana lede
Most of your edits to this article are quite helpful however the changes made to the lede paragraphs are not supported by the refs you gave and are found in none of the major histories of the battle or eyewitness accounts. Please do not revert to 'thousands of rifles' or 'checked invasion' until you can make this case in the discussion page of the article further reverts are edit warring see WP:EW.Tttom1 (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ian Knight is mostly alone in this, the minority viewm and British Battles website is not a source and follows Knight. Knight does not document the capture of thousands of firearms after the war or during the battle, nor does anyone else, but even if they have them they don't appear to be used at Isandlwana. Based on most sources, Zulu gunfire is barely mentioned beyond occassional sniping. The British military establishment has all sorts of weaponry available that is not documented at this battle from gatling guns to dreadnoughts and they are not mentioned - so too thousands of Zulu guns.World history source is clear that the Zulus are equipped with spears and rifle are anecdotal and incidental.Please discuss on article discussion page and await consensus before revert.Tttom1 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
February 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on British National Party. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Snowded TALK 08:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have not 'attacked' anyone, I have pointed out the glaringly obvious hostility you have for the said party. You are incapable of discussing the matter.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Deal with content issues, not editors. Its a fair warning and gives you a chance to modify your behaviour. --Snowded TALK 18:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that politically motivated editors like Snowded continues to drive editors away from Wikipedia. I have seen many new editors just give up as a result of the harsh comments of this editor, completly unwilling to engage in any constructive dialogue. I hope you stay and contribute to Wikipedia however! User:Gabagool/sig 20:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hello TheG! I am not cowed by those with an axe to grind and will continue to do my part in bringing wikipedia towards a better universal standard, regardless of the subject matter and regardless of the harsh political opinion pushers.
Thanks for the message. :) Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)