User talk:Catiline63

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Movicons2-hello.gif Welcomebanner.gifA B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200
Fun and interesting pages

Hello, Catiline63, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Avi15 and I would like to thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png   Introduction
 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia
Crystal package utilities.png   How to edit a page
Crystal khelpcenter.png   Help
Crystal Clear app ktip.png   Tips
Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png   How to write a great article
Crystal Clear app kedit.png   Manual of Style
Nuvola apps konquest.png   Fun stuff...
UncialB-01.png   Be Bold
Face-angel.svg   Assume Good faith
23   Keep cool
Presa de decissions.png   Have an experienced editor adopt you
Symbol neutral vote.svg   Policy on neutral point of view

And here are several pages on what to avoid:

No-spam.png How to not spam
Red copyright.svg How to avoid copyright infringement
Octagon-warning.svg What Wikipedia is not
Stop hand.svg Make sure not to get blocked, which should be no problem after reading this

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which are produced by clicking on the Button sig.png button; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, I think that you might want to join the the adopt-a-user project, where advanced editors can guide you in your first experiences here; so check it out if you want. Again, welcome! 

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Task Center for brief guides.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular low quality articles.

Click here to reply to this message.

This welcome message was sent by Avi15 at 13:34, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

Since you decided to sign in...[edit]

You might wish to have a link to the responses posted in your anon account. I reproduce some of them here, as you might be unaware that you are in violation of 3RR, and need to know that any subsequent reverts will result in a block for 3RR:


We don't use it here. It has no value whatsoever. The coin of the realm in Wikipedia is Verifiability, Notability and Reliability. Citations are the only thing we rely upon. If someone writes a citable article talking about how Kirk and Spock make creepy monkey pon-farr in the backseat of 65 Buick, then we can include it. The litmus for inclusion is citability, not truth. Fortunately, there are other sources which overwhelm the other citable info and thus can be removed under the argument of undue weight. Imdb is not a reliable, citable source. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit -warring (3RR warning)[edit]

Please stop. Your opinion, while polite, has not found a consensus in the article discussion, and further attempts to include information about canon or other fannish concepts against consensus will likely result in a block for edit-warring. I would urge you to find (or build) a consensus before re-adding the information. Look at the matter another way: you are not convincing at least three other people who disagree with you, and they will revert your adding this information. You need to be aware that these reverts are not vandalism, as you have characterized it here. You are not going to be able to revert and add the material in again without violating 3RR.
You are in fact in violation of 3RR currently (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), and you could be reported and blocked for this gross infraction. Please review the 3RR policies and make no more reverts to the article for 24 hours. If you do, I will report you at WP:AIV, and you will be subsequently blocked.
If you need help understanding our policies and guidelines, please ask. Charging forth like a bull in a china shop will prove to be an expensive misbehavior for yourself. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are properly notified. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You were warned. This edit constitutes your 8th revert in less than 24 hours. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety talk 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note: [1]. Tiptoety talk 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Catiline63 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

My last reversion of 10th Sept (for which I was blocked) was unconnected to the reversions of 9th Sept (for which I was warned). Not also that the guy who reported me did not understand the reason for my reversion, and that it was ultimately valid: I edited (citing source), he reverted (misunderstanding my source), I reverted (pointing out his misunderstanding), he reverted (without addressing my point) then reported me to you. The discussion on the discussion page supports my point and source.Catiline63 (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The three-revert rule is not about who is right; it's an electric fence to stop edit wars getting out of hand. Generally speaking, you shouldn't be revert-warring at all! — Werdna • talk 11:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

And this was explained to you yesterday in the James Kirk article discussion page. If you think someone is misinterpreting something, head to the article discussion and take it up there. That is especially important after you've received a 3RR warning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008[edit]

Bringing someone back from the dead is not a minor edit. Shenme (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


In Equestrian order, by "Vesuvian shore", I mean (obviously) the shore at the foot of Mt Vesuvius (which does actually slope down into the sea in one section), to distinguish it from the rest of the bay. Herculaneum was buried by lava, not pyroclastic flows, blocking the escape route along the shore. Pliny states clearly in his letter that the only way out for survivors was by boat: nec erat fuga nisi navibus.

I welcome contributions, but only if they add value (for the readers, that is). I don't see how clarity for readers is assisted by removing the term "volcano" or by calling admirals prefects etc. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back! But we've had the argument about Vesuvius before. Since there's plenty of space opposite the Contents, I see no reason to deprive the readers of this interesting story. EraNavigator (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
True, but I wanted to integrate the Curtius image with the rest of the series showing the equipment of Roman Republican cavalry. (BTW see my response to your comment on the Discussion Page). EraNavigator (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


I understand your point about his Roman citizenship. It is important. But to call him Roman is misleading to readers. It is unnecessarily misleading. "Roman" has connotations of his being from Rome or being part of the Roman traditions of science. Neither is true. It does not serve readers to use a term that can be misconstrued when there is available a more precise and neutral alternative. To say Ptolemy had Roman citizenship is a clearly neutral statement.

If you dispute his Greek-ness, then write it in the text of the article rather than deleting things and reverting my text to yours. His heritage/relationship to Greek culture and scientific traditions is an important part of the topic of Ptolemy and should be mentioned in the first sentence. The Encyclopedia Britannica uses the term "an Egyptian of Greek descent". I am sure you can make the page stronger. BobKawanaka (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

        • Warning

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to hannibal. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


You have been warned enough times about this. The next time I will report you. Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to hannibal. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Hannibal. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

Please seek discussion[edit]

You are advised to discuss any further issues you have regarding changes to the Hannibal article on its talk page to avoid appearing as if you're engaging in a disruptive edit war (which will lead to being blocked from editing). Thank you. Nja247 09:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I do note that you have sought to discuss the issue on TruHeir's talk page and I wish to thank you for approaching the dispute in a proper manner. Thank you. Nja247 09:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is doing anything based on opinions it’s you. 1st of all you changed the original writing under the bust to support your illegitimate claim that is vandalism. Also those "sources" you speak of do not support or authenticate that this roman image is of Hannibal in anyway. It would be best if we actually look time out to find an authentic image other than partake in this edit war.TruHeir (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, you both should seek consensus and as a final resort dispute resolution. No more edit warring or forum shopping please, as either party risks a block for any continued disruption (by edit war or forum shop). Nja247 13:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Understand that I have a life in the real world, if you leave me a message I will respond to you when I can , so please spare the hounding. Anyway you say you want me to provide a source that say the image is not of Hannibal, because you have provided 5 scholarly sources that say otherwise. Well I don’t need to provide a source because, you have already done it and have proven my point. NONE of the “sources” you provided states that the picture is of Hannibal. You yourself said that all the sources you listed said MAYBE the picture if of Hannibal, then you went on to add a quote from one of your “sources” saying “"A bust which me be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him". You have basically proven my point if your sources aren’t sure whether or not the image is authentic and you actually have a quote from one saying that there are no definite images of Hannibal then that image should definitely not be there.TruHeir (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to you, Catiline I hope you know this is not personal, this is about improving the page .The last I checked the people you listed (that you are now claiming support the image) did/ do not support it at all. It seems like your twisting your words around because, when you originally listed them as sources. The references you provided indicated that they were all unsure whether the image is actually of him or not and you also went on to say “Adrian Goldsworthy, Cannae p.24 (2001): "A bust which me be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him" That is basically the end all be all of this debate, your own source discredited your claim. It is odd that you insist on using this image that no one has authenticated or validated to be him, all the ppl you listed just say “maybe” and If your source said there are no definite images of him, then on earth are you using this picture of this “roman mystery man” to represent him in the 1st place. TruHeir (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also I am very surpise to see that don't have any issues talking to me on my talk page, yet you go on the articles discussion page and all me a sock. Clearly this isn't going anywhere I'm going to leave it to the Admins to intervene.TruHeir (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As noted here, this is not something that needs intervention by the admins. You have many unexplored dispute resolution methods available to you both. Nja247 07:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess from this edit that TruHeir's need to believe that the image is inauthentic derives from the usual Afrocentist motivations. Paul B (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

O God so now I'm an Afrocentric, if you look at the edits on that page before I came on you will see that I did not add that it was there already I just moved it up and let it flow with the rest of the page judging from you edits you seem to have a fixation with race so I guess I can race you a racist then TruHeir (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

frist you wrote this on my page,

Despite requesting for comments on the relevance/reliability of the sources, you've removed many of the ones that I have added (Matyszak, Lancel, more Goldsworthy stuff), so the current article has only one that is actually relevant (without a picture accompanying Smith we can tell whether his artcile alludes to this bust). Is this deliberate? Catiline63 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

then changed it this

Despite requesting for comments on the relevance/reliability of the sources, and promising to the admin above to "list the sources" as he requested, you've now removed the opinions of Matyszak, Lancel, and Goldsworthy's later stuff. The current article now has only one reference that is actually relevant (without a picture accompanying Smith we can tell whether his artcile alludes to this bust). Is this deliberate? Catiline63 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not here for game.In case you couldn't read properly take a closer look, what is being disputed are the sources you provided and I have listed the sources on the noticeboard. Also you say I've Removed them from where? the only thing I removed was the wording you removed and add to the caption of the picture, and revert the edit you made to the image because its being disputed. and should remain in its original form. I have not removed you "sources". You added those "sources" to the noticeboard and have added it to the articles talk page, so if you "source" are reliable then it will be decided so. Other than that refrain from accusing me of things I have don't done. If you actually wanted to talk to be about this issue you would not go on the topic page do say I have not seeked consensus with you when I have infact been talking to you, or call me a sock. I do not have anything to say to you about this matter the admins will decide the outcomeTruHeir (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


This is a response to your comment on my talk page. I highly recommend you sort this issue through use of the dispute resolution mechanism. In terms of sources, you could try the reliable source noticeboard, who will comment on whether the sources are good or not but not on content disputes. Otherwise you could ask for a 3rd opinion and if that doesn't work or you both can't sort it yourselves, take it to request for comment. Good luck, Nja247 19:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Tampering with other people's word[edit]

You do not have any right to go and change or re-word something that was written and signed by me.

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TruHeir (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to do this, because it might be fanning flames when TruHeir might have been letting them die, but in fairness you should know that there's a WP:WQA#re-wording thread about this. If you want my humble advice, I'd ignore it unless TruHeir indicates he wants to follow through; it appears he might have changed his mind and wants to let this go, I don't know. I completely understand that you felt the summary wasn't neutral (it wasn't), but altering other people's comments almost always backfires, and does more harm than good. Yes, I know, that kind of unfairly locks in TruHeir's wording, but still, now you have a WP:WQA to mess with, and the Bot didn't let you do it anyway. Better to have asked him to re-word it, or just let it slide as one of those things we just live with. Anyway, I've done my duty and notified you about the thread, and hopefully not made a bad situation worse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, it wouldn't be too surprising. I'm fairly convinced that he's either identical to or closely linked with another editor who challenged the Hannibal image back in April and who at that time was openly asserting the 'Hannibal was black' line [2], even asserting that "throughout Europe and especially in Rome (also Persia) the top the military men and generals were in fact black Africans" (!!!). This one suddenly reappeared to edit war on the km (hieroglyph) page after I mentioned it. [3]. Presumably the new strategy is to present the 'problem' as a matter of sources and deny that any other motivation exists. Paul B (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


Regarding your edit to Marcus Junius Brutus, nicely done. The article reads much better now and his name changing, and motives for it, are clear and concise. Good work. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaius Octavius Princeps (talkcontribs) 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Flavius" Olybrius[edit]

I know we had this argument before, but for the name Flavius see List of Roman Emperors, the coin inscription. Dgarq (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dgarq, again[edit]


I noticed that you reverted an edit of User:Dgarq, who had added an unsourced "Flavius" to Olybrius' name. Dgarq officially "leaved" Wikipedia, but an IP user that reiterates his edits has reappeared and keeps adding information without proper sources (his source for Olybrius' name is a coin collecting manual).

I have no experience dealing with such behaviour, and I find pointless removing his edits as he immediately undos mine. Do you agree with me that those names are unsupported and should be removed? How can we do that if he keeps on adding the names?

Bye --TakenakaN (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I see you moved the article: Gaius Furius Sabinius Aquila Timesitheus to Gaius Furius Sabinus Aquila Timesitheus. What is your source that his name was Sabinus instead of Sabinius? There seems to be some kind of obscurity whether his name was Sabinius or Sabinus. In Cambridge Ancient History XII p. 34 and Roman Empire at Bay AD 180-395 p. 229 his name is Sabinius as well as in this CIL inscription. Check also this google books search. Thanks --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg Your addition to Spartacus: Blood and Sand has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  Xeworlebi (tc) 09:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Their suicide notes are the same."[edit]

And they're copied from User:CiudadanoGlobal and I'm not him. I just found it a good sentence to finish with this travesti. Just in my defense. Dgarq (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for your recent edit to Mockumentary. I agree with you that Monty Python's Flying Circus offers an early example of television mockumentary, but would like to find a source discussing it as such. Roscoe and Hight (2001) mention (in a footnote to discussion of The Rutles) both Python and Saturday Night Live as "precursors to the mock-documentary form." Do you know of any sources that actually discuss Python sketches as mock-documentary? Cnilep (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Rorke's Drift[edit]

Have responded to your comments in talk. Thanks for your interest and overall fine edits.Tttom1 (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Whybra - thank for the info, I'll add publisher, but this sounds a somewhat obscure work and not widely accessible. I'm not saying don't use it as a source, but I'd hesitate to give undue weight over better known and more available material.Tttom1 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Although rather rare, his works' not that inaccessible. No less accessible than an article in the AZWHJ, for example. As for "better" material... well, only Holme approaches him., and if the successor regiment to the 24th Foot deems his worth good enough to sell, then it can't be bad. Might be worth you having a look on the Zulu War forums to see how well-regarded Whybra is, even by other professionals.Catiline63 (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Christina Hendricks, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Anglo-American (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) 12:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)