User talk:Urg writer
- 1 Welcome
- 2 Servius Tullius
- 3 Livy
- 4 Livy again
- 5 Thanks!
- 6 July 2013
- 7 Disambiguation link notification for July 5
- 8 Valerius Volesus nominated for Deletion
- 9 Disambiguation link notification for November 7
- 10 Ways to improve Quintus Fabius Vibulanus (consul 485 and 482 BC)
- 11 Talkback
- 12 List of quaestors
Hey, Urg writer, I noticed that you've been making serious and useful contributions to Servius Tullius. I was thinking of deleting the big scary "multiple issues" tag, particularly if you're going to keep chipping away at it. I don't see that many cleanup issues, and while articles can almost always use additional sources, this one is not really bare of sources. Answer here or on the article talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey mate. Thanks for the credit. All I have been doing is using Livy to fill-out and/or correct articles such as Servius Tullius. Unfortunately, there is still alot of rubbish in the Servius article - more so than the other Roman kings' articles. I haven't tried to go through it comprehensively to fix it up. For example, the 3rd and 4th paras of "parentage and birth" are pretty silly, as is "later life and death". I would prefer a more historically-sourced and logically-flowing article. Do you think we should have a go at fixing it? Or just leave it with the tag for now? And, by the way, your user-page shows that your own wiki contributions are impressive!! --Urg writer (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, just now seeing this, forgot to flag your page to watch. My feeling is that the myths pertaining to Servius Tullius are as important as whatever historical fact can be gleaned; this is always a very tricky thing to handle. I'll put my suggestion for this on the talk page there. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I actually woke up this morning thinking about this, precisely because I thought I sounded unappreciative, and was just sitting down to post another comment saying that I had missed the obvious, which I will now say here: I think it's splendid that you're doing this. I've been thinking lately that I wanted to take some time from WP to read or re-read some ancient authors as a whole. And (this is actually what I want to say) there's nothing at all wrong with looking for missing topics by reading Livy. My point is more that in order to anticipate any questions that might be raised about OR, notability, and so on, you should have some modern secondary scholarship on hand, to alert both you and readers to any questions raised by Livy or his omissions. Please don't be discouraged by the response. For one thing, there are a surprising number of people who try to contribute to WP who can't even write a sentence, and you write well and clearly. This is not a skill I would want us to lose. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Urg, I just saw your note at Cynwolfe's talk-page. I'm truly sorry that the responses at G&R - mine included, of course - made you feel your work was unwelcome and unappreciated. That really wasn't the intention. Talk-page exchanges can sometimes be brusque, impatient, sarcastic; or they can seem so. Believe it or not, this one was ultra-civilised compared to some; but it's still unpleasant when you're at the receiving end. So it goes, though maybe it shouldn't. For the rest, I'll ditto Cynwolfe's remarks above. Haploidavey (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto. I'll gladly admit I was willing to give a general read on principles but too lazy to jump into the details of the editing and provide something that might have been more specifically encouraging. I applaud and encourage your desire to improve the articles and hope all of those comments can be simply digested into more background about how to use your admirable energies to create the kind of content that will be backed by consensus approval and endure as valuable encyclopedia content. Wareh (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Cheers guys/girls. Feeling suitably loved again *glow*. By the way, I had a look for the first time at the talk page on Servius Tullius which briefly raises a couple of points related to this. Thanks for each of your comments there. Please don't hesitate to "step on my toes" (as mentioned on that page) if there are good reasons for doing it.--Urg writer (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roman–Latin wars 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:
- league against Rome, at the instigation of [[Octavius Mamilius]] of [[Tusculum]]. Because of this (and also because of a [[Sabines#Bloodless_war, 501_BC|dispute with the Sabines]], [[Titus Lartius]]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 495 BC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Signia (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.
Valerius Volesus nominated for Deletion
Valerius Volesus has been nominated for deletion, based on the notability of its subject. The person in question is known only from passages mentioning that he was the father of three other persons; no other information is known about him. This information is fully presented in the articles about his children and the article on the gens Valeria. There is no likelihood of additional material coming to light about him in the foreseeable future. Because relationships do not confer notability, and no other information is known about him, he does not merit an article on Wikipedia.
I add, merely for reference, that his name was Volesus Valerius, not Valerius Volesus. Volesus did not become a cognomen of the Valeria gens until the generation of his children, who assumed it in his honor. The passages in Livy that mention him clearly indicate that Volesus was his praenomen, and this is how he is described in both the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology and Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. P Aculeius (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Overthrow of the Roman monarchy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ardea (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.
Ways to improve Quintus Fabius Vibulanus (consul 485 and 482 BC)
Hi, I'm Annas86. Urg writer, thanks for creating Quintus Fabius Vibulanus (consul 485 and 482 BC)!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hi there, the article that you created Quintus_Fabius_Vibulanus_(consul_485_and_482_BC) have only references to the other wikipedia article, I think you should add other reliable (non wikipedia) sources for verification. Cheers.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. @NnAs (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)