User talk:Fatidiot1234

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Face-smile.svg

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Fatidiot1234. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sic monumentum requiris circumspice


The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)[edit]

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Prosopography_of_the_Later_Roman_Empire[edit]

hi; i noticed that you changed the tense; is it meant to be "have" then? "had" & "have" both work grammatically, but have shades of difference in meaning. "had" would imply that the names might have been recovered, at least conjecturally, in this publication. Lx 121 (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

Re. your comment "None of your edits are constructive. Why don't you find a different playground?" I note how suitable your name is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.43.24 (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

World WIthout End edit[edit]

On August 27 you said: "Eponymous" is not in your vocabulary? Fatidiot1234 (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is and that is why I deleted it. IFRC, it's was never stated in either book exactly where the town name "Kingsbridge" came from. Throughout both books, it is commonly just referred to as the bridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkharrisjr (talkcontribs) 14:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources for fiction[edit]

I've reverted this edit because, per Wikipedia guidelines, articles about works of fiction need to be more than plot summary. Without sources asserting the notability of the topic, establishing cultural impact, and other real-world context, this article violates policy and is in danger of deletion. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 03:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add order of office to Goodluck Jonathan[edit]

Greetings. The revision history statistics of Goodluck Jonathan lists you as one of the article's major contributors. Therefore, I would like to highlight a proposal I've put forward. I believe the order of office of Jonathan (i.e. what number president he is) should be added to the infobox, as happens with other articles. There's a dispute over that, so I wanted to invite you to the discussion on account of your involvement with the article. Thank you: Talk:Goodluck Jonathan#Order of office proposal. HonouraryMix (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A quotation is needed[edit]

Re this edit of yours at Herodes Atticus. Thanks. 79.103.58.210 (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Appia Nuova[edit]

I stand corrected. But what is the relevance of the date of construction of the Appia Nuova to an article on Villa dei Quintili? Hence my confusion. Roundtheworld (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write the that post, but I found it relevant as excluding the possibility that the Quintili had the Via Appia running through their back yard, which would be most inelegant.Fatidiot1234 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Antinous[edit]

The reference you gave concerning the relationship doesn't touch on sexuality - it's about the reasons for his death. You mention the case being "not proven": if you tried going to the Resurrection of Christ page and saying that this wasn't proven you'd have an edit war on your hands, yet the Antinous/Hadrian case is on much stronger grounds. What, after all, is "proof" in history? Some people still don't think there's proof that the Holocaust ever happened, and quite a number can't see that Elvis ever died - where's the proof? There's no proof in history, only the weight of evidence and the consensus of historians. What you need isn't Lambert, but reliable sources quoting mainstream opinion among modern historians of the subject. Try the Oxford history of ancient Rome (just an example - I haven't looked and don't know what it says, but I can guess) - it trumps Lambert. PiCo (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On page 440 of the Oxford History of the Roman World Antinous is referred to as "Hadrian's boyfriend". If you quote that there's no need for Lambert. What's needed is to state mainstream opinion, not to argue the case. PiCo (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked Royston Lambert up. He's NOT a historian, and NOT a classicist. He can't be accepted as a reliable source. Go to the big names, Oxford.Cambridge encyclopedias, things like that. PiCo (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know you agree with me, and I feel better for that. I made a mistake about Lambert, he's more substantial than I'd realised. But I still hold to this: Wikipedia is not about truth, but about opinion. It's not for us to decide or say what was the nature of the relationship between A and H. On the other hand, we can't take Lambert's opinion as definitive - he's just one voice, and although his book got a good review in History Today he's not authoritative. The opinion we need to find is the majority opinion among experts, of whom Lambert is not one. That's why we need to go first to sources like the Oxford or Cambridge encyclopedias or companions or whatever they're called - they're representative of majority informed opinion. If they call Antinous Hadrian's beloved, or boyfriend, so do we. Your other editor will just have to wear it. PiCo (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith[edit]

I've seen your edit summary at Richard L. Thompson. You may not know it, but we ask our editors to assume good faith about other editors, see WP:AGF. I'd also suggest that when the person who probably works the hardest in the copyright field reverts some you not reinstate what they reverted but discuss it with them first. Please don't ever do this again. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether you like them or not, we have processes in place for confirming permission of text. Restoring that text before the confirmation is complete (it is now) is a violation of policy and may result in sanctions against your account. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and we do what we must to ensure that our content remains compliant. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't replace copyvio[edit]

I removed some text at Talk:Hadrian as copyvio. Please don't put the material back - in fact, even if you could show it isn't copyvio, a self-proclaimed essay doesn't belong on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no place on Wikipedia for copyright violations, and that includes talk pages and user pages. If you wish to challenge this you can go to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems but please dont' replace it. And as I said, an essay doesn't belong on a talk page either as talk pages are purely for discussing the actual article, not the subject of the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

Hey, I can understand linking to the characters page from a characters section, but linking it from the plot summary makes no sense. A reader will click that link thinking he gets a bigger and more detailed edit summary, but he gets something else completely. If you want to link something, why not link the plot sections from the individual books? Yoenit (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

June 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:14th Dalai Lama, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Also, this edit was an abuse of Twinkle, which is an anti-vandalism tool. Shrigley (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ham House[edit]

I presume that you were referring to your own contribution when you reverted me and said in your summary "illiterate piffle". The content makes little sense and Macaulay is far too old and unreliable a source. Yes, like Acton and Temperley, he was a big name in his time; but no, he is not a big name now. The information may be correct but it should be possible to find a much more modern reliable source. Constructing a single sentence that is clear and logical should also not be unduly taxing. If you cannot achieve both of these things then you really should not mention the point in the article, although asking a question at the article talk page might get you the required info. - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Julius III[edit]

I felt like saying the same! Thanks for your very helpful intervention. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

For breach of civility.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellae artes (talkcontribs) 04:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Pope Julius III, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. De728631 (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOVN[edit]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Fatidiot1234. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harry Graf Kessler may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • In 1919 he wrote a "plan for a League of Nations on the basis of an organization of organizations (World Organisation ", which contains the constitution of such an international confederation of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)