Objection based on "Should not be here" for OR image
The Caesar image is the exact same thing as any Wikipedia graph, chart or map made by a Wikipedian. It is OR, but acceptable for images and its inclusion only made because the section is not "cultural depictions" or "historic depictions". The image was created by a portrait artist with some expertise in this type of speculative art (and yes, the artist is me and I have painted portraits with far less to work with). If the quality is lacking then just say that and let consensus form to exclude it. If you feel further work should be made on the image or a particular change should be made, please let me know. I also intend to make renderings of the other busts--Amadscientist (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if "speculative art" is the same as maps or graphs. The information on a map can be referenced, as can the data on a graph, etc. What I do know is that you can't have your image on the Julius Caesar article. I like the idea of it, though. Put your image in cultural depictions. If you intend to keep doing this to busts then I would suggest you keep them in cultural depictions articles. If cultural depictions of an individual don't have their own article, then simply create it. Then throw your image in, but also throw in a couple random renaissance woodcut images or whatever, any cultural depictions that aren't your image. That way their isn't undue weight towards your image on the cultural depictions article.--Tataryn77 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since you were mentioned in the edit summary but I hadn't seen anything from you at Talk:Julius Caesar, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the Commons deletion of the Tusculum bust. Do you know what's up, or where another version could be obtained? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Roman Empire GA review
There is a community review of the GA status of Roman Empire at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Roman Empire/1, to which you may wish to contribute.--SabreBD (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Removals from Pages
Dear Tataryn, I greatly appreciate your concern about the removals I had made for several pages. I had actually originally added content to those pages for classwork, but we were asked to remove the additional links we had added to pages that were disruptive. In the future, I will make sure to explain the edits I am making. Thanks! ~Diana
Hi! There were just concerns that many students were putting incredibly specific and absolutely trivial details into very general articles. Therefore, we have been instructed to go about adding the information in different ways. DianaHe (talk) 19:52,13 November 2014 (UTC)
Then expand the article. If someone deems the info is too specific for the article, they can move it, make a new article, etc. Some of the info you added that I briefly read didn't seem too specific at all. Thanks for the additions!--Tataryn (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Having been an editor here from since nearly the beginning, I've come to notice that once one discovers a major gap somewhere (like who's the current Iraqi Minister of Defense, for example), someone usually tries to delete it or revert it or something. Like what you did to my recent revisions to the Valentinian I article, for example. I know it's a radical addition that looks remarkably like vandalism, but it's not. I first found out about it about ten years ago when I saw this cool TV special on the archeological exploration of Alexandria harbor. It was fascinating, and they explained that almost the entire northern part of the city, where there were temples and palaces galore, fell into the sea due to an earthquake and tsunami. In 2010, I took a tour of Libya and looked at a whole bunch of archeological sites (plus the museum in Tripoli, which then housed Qaddafi's then-holy Volkswagen bug, but that's another story). At each place I went to along the coast, the guide would tell us about how the city was destroyed by the tsunami of 365 AD, and how there was a weak recovery but all of the cities but one never recovered (Tripoli, then Oaa, is still there, Bengazi is relatively new). Then the Vandals came and the Byzantines came and finally the Arabs came.
While there's a lot of stuff that survived from the period of 100 BC to 100 AD, not much survived from after. The stuff that DID survive is almost entirely from the Capitol region of Rome itself. Politics of the top. There's very little from the provinces, almost nothing in fact. This is because most of the paper products swept away during the tsunami of 365 AD (plus book burnings by Christians and Muslims from 332 to 800). The records of the entire Ptolomaic bureaucracy are gone. There is ONE autographed order from the great Cleopatra (d.30 BC) that is known to still exist.
Also, natural disasters tend to be overlooked by ancient historians, who didn't understand them and weren't particularly interested. Look at the reign of Justinian, there was a large tsunami, a volcanic winter/famine, and the second worst plague in history. The histories of the time didn't actually dwell upon any of this. Why? I dunno. They might have, but 97% of the literary output of the ancient world is gone forever. North Africa became a backwater. The monuments and buildings which still exist were buried in the sand and when they were dug out of the ground in the last century and a half, it was astounding. Ericl (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ammianus Marcellinus mentions only destruction in Egypt. The other source you cited looks like an undergrad paper, but nevertheless it argues for multiple seismic events rather than one single event around Crete. "Untold millions" were not killed. Ammianus says thousands. Keep your additions in-line with your sources.--Tataryn (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- A National Geographic slideshow does not count as a scholarly source. Also, there is only evidence to support damage done to Egypt, not the whole north African coast. Stop conflating what could perhaps be more than one seismic event with the Crete earthquake. Furthermore, your title "Destruction of North Africa" is misleading. That does not mean you should write "The Destruction of Egypt" instead. Same goes for "untold" - I had said don't say "untold millions" were killed, so you now write "untold thousands". Odds the authorities in Egypt would have had decent estimates of the death toll, so adding "untold" is pointless. Think before you write.--Tataryn (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)