User talk:Gaius Octavius Princeps

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

Brutus coin and the issue of his name[edit]

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[edit]

Very good edits! Bravo! Trilobitealive (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors Barnstar.png 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)


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[edit]

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)

Rorke's Drift[edit]

Moved my responses to article talk page.Tttom1 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mau Mau[edit]

Glad to see someone who is keen to stop pro-Mau Mau loons from hijacking the MM article! I reverted it way back to get rid of the terrible edits made by that Mau Mau lover, so I might have lost some of your additions. I saw your Ogot quote in the discussion section, so I've slapped it in a quote box to balance the by Elkins mentioning British atrocities. I'm going through sourcing the parts which haven't been, expanding certain sections, and will sort out the random collection of sections which the other editor Sh33pl0re seems to have given up finishing. I'll try and go through and rescue other bits you may have added but which wer lost by my reversion too. Suggestions and help welcome! Iloveandrea (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Saw your reversion. OK, rather than revert to mine and then re-add what you did, I'll keep yours stuff and add in mine, if that make sense!
Iloveandrea (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. And Happy Christmas!Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK! Off to work now, I've made what alterations I'm going to for today, so feel to check it over, change it about or whatever. Happy Christmas to you too =D
Iloveandrea (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Eagle[edit]

You added that 70% of Rotten Tomatoes 'top critics' gave the film a positive review. The number is actually 37% (I assume you were basing that number from memory of old information). Since the 'top critics' score doesn't show any particular disconnect between 'top critics' and 'all critics', I don't think it's necessary to include and I've removed it. Just letting you know. I won't protest further if you feel strongly and want to add it, but I don't think it's necessary. Regards, Swarm X 03:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

--Nope, it is 70%. Click the 'Top Critics' bit. It looks like this: All Critics|Top Critics.
You cannot link directly to it, as you have to go to the films page and click here /\.

'All critics' is 41% and is the aggregate score from literally all critic ratings.
'Top Critics' only takes the aggregate of those critics considered to be at the top of their field. To quote the Rotten Tomatoes wikipedia entry "In addition, major film reviewers like Roger Ebert, Desson Thomson, Stephen Hunter, and Lisa Schwarzbaum (etc), are listed in a sub-listing called 'Top Critics'".

The Eagle has a 70% approval rating on it representing a positive reaction from the top critics. This is worth including in my opinion. I will re-add it for now, as I presume you have did not see the 70% Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you're seeing that. I'm seeing 37%
Average Rating: 5.2/10
Critic Reviews: 30
Fresh: 11 | Rotten: 19
How is that different from what you're seeing? Swarm X 16:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that is strange.
I'm intrigued.

Here is a printscreen of the page as I see it, with the 'Top Critics' score 70%:

http://img863.imageshack.us/i/91009024.jpg/

And here is the 'All Critics' score of 41%:

http://img25.imageshack.us/i/28343758.jpg/

Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I've never encountered anything like that before. Here's mine for comparison.
I'm seeing the exact same "all critics" page. My best guess as to why we're seeing such differences in 'top critic' scores would be that Rotten Tomatoes uses your IP address to detect what country you're in and loads the scores for that nation or region. If you scroll down, you can see the top critics' reviews. The top critics I'm all seeing are from U.S. and Canadian sources. Could you take a look to see if this theory is correct? Swarm X 01:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Very bizarre!

As to the critics being regional, I'm guessing mine are similar to yours as I have the likes of Ebert, NY Times, LA Times as well as British ones like Empire and The Daily Telegraph.

Look here for a screen of some of the Top Critics: http://img26.imageshack.us/i/cccpr.jpg/

Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My revert of your edit to Royal Navy[edit]

Sorry about that, I had completely misunderstood what you had done and reverted it. My apologies, happy editing. :) G.R. Allison (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :D Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice User Page[edit]

We seem to share a lot in common! I love Napoleonic and Roman times too! Keep it up :) Alexandre8 (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857[edit]

This is regarding your recent edits to "Aftermath". I was curious to know the reason you deleted the references to Hodson. Your edit summary also said pov. Nothing seemed really pov to me. Its quite a well-referenced article and has been cleaned up quite a bit. Would you care to elaborate? AshLin (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  • It said "Another brief letter from General Sir Robert Montgomery to Captain Hodson, the conqueror of Delhi exposes how the British military high command approved of the cold blooded massacre of Delhiites: "All honour to you for catching the king and slaying his sons. I hope you will bag many more!""
  • "Exposes" and "Cold blooded massacre" are highly pov pushing.
  • A more balanced entry would be: "Another brief letter from General Sir Robert Montgomery to Captain Hodson, the conqueror of Delhi demonstrates how some in the British military high command approved of the execution of the King and his sons: "All honour to you for catching the king and slaying his sons. I hope you will bag many more!""
  • Or if it read something like this: "A letter from General Sir Robert Montgomery congratulated Captain Hodson, the conqueror of Delhi, saying; "All honour to you for catching the king and slaying his sons. I hope you will bag many more!"... Then this could then be folded into the British reaction section quite neatly.
  • Both retain the original source without emotive language and pov. As it was I was unsure where the source for this came from, if you can find it I would not argue against it's re-inclusion into the article, minus the pov.
  • Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Spartacus[edit]

Hello, since you were the first person to complain about the reverts of BCE/CE on the spartacus article, I'd appreciate your return to the discussion to help with the origins in the edit warring. 94.194.34.10 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

War of 1812[edit]

You added the statement about US expansion into the Northwest and stated that it was previously deleted without reason. It was previously deleted here and a reason was given. The sentence already states: "...British support of American Indian tribes against American expansion...." There is no need to repeat the point about American expansion into the Northwest. Dwalrus (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Caçadores, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Arthur Wellesley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Irish Rebellion of 1798, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vinegar Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Battle of Vitoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Thomas Graham and Roland Hill
Miguel Ricardo de Álava y Esquivel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Siege of Badajoz and Siege of Ciudad Rodrigo
Battle of Albuera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Jean-Baptiste Girard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile![edit]

A Barnstar!
A smile for you

You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.87 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Quatre Bras order of battle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Cooke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Siege of Badajoz (1812), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Military secretary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Golden Dawn (Greece)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 September 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in getting this asinine label removed from the party. So many to choose from, and they insist on something like that. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.70.45 (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

Hi. Would you be interested in a brief collaborative effort to get British soldiers in the eighteenth century‎ to GA status? I think it came fairly close back in Feb. Perhaps with a little more effort it could be improved to meet the requirements of the reviewer, if resubmitted for a GAR. I'd take no offence if you don't wish to. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 42nd Regiment of Foot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siege of Badajoz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Ned Pakenham1.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ezekiel Baker[edit]

Hallo, thanks for correcting a fact in Mr. Baker. The article is pretty ropy at the moment - most of it is a coatrack for the B. rifle, and that section is totally uncited. Since you seen to be rather well informed on the matter, could you possibly add a ref or two to the section? (And even a few biog. details on the man himself, if you have time.) All the best and many thanks - Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)