|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Odotheus and Alatheus
Seems plausible, or at least possible? It's a (mildly) interesting problem for the purposes of Wikipedia what to do with records of what may be either one single or two separate people. In Bhartṛhari we conflated it into a single page. It may make sense to do the same here. --dab (𒁳) 08:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I just looked into it for a few minutes, and it seems to me that in this case, there is a rather clear consensus that this is a single person; and I did not see anyone explicitly stating that they disagree. It's a clear merge candidate. --dab (𒁳) 08:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I've now merged Odotheus into the Alatheus article as the name Alatheus is more commonly used in literature (probably because of it's association with the Battle of Adrianople. On a side note, given your appearant interest in the wide range on wikipedian historical articles, i'm sure you've had the misfortune of encountering User:Tirgil34 and his socks. I've recently made an effort to clean up his mess at Wusun, but this has been obstructed by a ducky IP. If you're a German-speaker the edits of the de:Benutzer:Tsaigankuk might of interest. User:Tsaigankuk is proven sock of Tirgil34 and many of his WP:Fringe edits still still stand on the German wiki. Krakkos (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote
Hi Dbachmann. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (72nd to be exact), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. We are keen to feature the Karte Pomponius Mela in the launch issue of a new magazine in the UK. Do you have it in a bigger size/ higher res? It needs to be at least 353mm wide and 300dpi.
Please email me on email@example.com.
Thank you so much,
Assuming you mean this file, File:Karte Pomponius Mela.jpg, I don't know why you are asking me, as I didn't upload the file. You want to reprint the map at approximately the same size as it was in the original publication. This is going to be difficult unless you get hold of a well-preserved copy of the original book. Here is a digitisation of that publication, but the Mela map (table 7) seems to be missing. --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Krakkos (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Runestones and ESOP
Good work there but I've avoided using ESOP, including Tompsen's paper, because it is basically a fringe publication - one suggestion made to me is that ESOP wanted Tompsen's paper simply to rebut it. I'm waiting for an interlibrary loan book to help with at least the Shawnee runestone. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
well, since this isn't a scholarly topic per se, we have to use the best sources available relative to the topic's notability. In my book this stuff is next to unnotable, but of course it can still be on Wikipedia, it just makes sense to adopt the grouping "Oklahoma runestones" that is also used by Tompsen. No, I do not think the Tompsen paper has academic quality. But it's ok relative to the topic notability.
I suppose this is a bona fide topic of local history and folklore, much like the Hamlet's Grave thing I just enjoyed researching (a local pharmacist discovering Hamlet's tomb in 1932, and in 1933 the local tourist board puts up a ten ton granite monument). --dab (𒁳) 13:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Bachmann,
please read the image's talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 08:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You may want to take a quick look at your edit here. This results in
- "The Dingling ... were an ancient people appearing Chinese historiography in the context of the 1st century BCE. "
- I think that's what I meant, sorry. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)