User talk:Lectiodifficilior

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

Thank you for adding some real content to a page that's otherwise been wasted lately on a silly ethnic edit war! It does need expansion, certainly... - Mustafaa 03:43, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How does one use the "talk" function? I shall see.

Alexander deletion[edit]

As you may have seen from wandering around — our interests overlap a great deal — I'm hardly very big on these wars over controversial questions, and in particular about the endless Macedonian/Greek business, which I find otiose at best; I'm also heartily with you on not dragging this extraneous modern controversy into the Alexander article — but the language a person speaks is part of us (yes, you might expect that from me, my User page will have told you I'm an interpreter!), and deleting the information is not the best solution I don't think. Balance I'm all for: that was too much, this is too little! Best, Bill 19:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Classical Dictionary[edit]

I think that all of the things you propose are well within the scope of WP as it exists now, and indeed I've undertaken a few bouts of bringing articles up to OCD level. We do want better scholarship, it would be really handy to have more comprehensive lists of editions and such for authors, and people are always complaining that our basic overview material needs more content. Not to be too dismissive of your site, which has exciting things on it, but it doesn't seem helpful to divide efforts among two websites, and WP has lots of infrastructure and relevant content that is not strictly ancient, such as bios of modern-day classical scholars. What I think would be ideal is to focus your site on the text and commentary themselves, and connect people back to WP for the general info. For example, suppose Onesicritus makes a reference to a passage in Arrian; I'd like to be able to click on that reference and go to the exact passage in the original, and see any commentary, for instance, that there are two readings of a particular word. Conversely, if there is a reference in Arrian to the Hydaspes and I don't know what that is, I'd like to click and get a general article on it, which would be located back in WP. With an adroit division of labor, both projects will become stronger. Stan 06:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think it is better to keep everything in one place (=Wikipedia) to facilitate navigation and enrichment of content. Regards. PHG 22:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've never edited Roxane, but in any case, I agree with Stan and PHG - why not just use Wikipedia for that? That's cool about Bodrum, I'm going to have to visit all those castles someday! Adam Bishop 02:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I've noticed that about's pretty ridiculous. Medieval scholars also tend to be wary of Wikipedia, aside from the one or two that sometimes edit here. Working on Wikipedia is not even something I would mention in public, which is kind of sad. Hopefully we can make both areas respectable someday. Adam Bishop 02:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stub categories[edit]

Sorry, I didn't realise you'd changed the notice back, I've put a reply on Talk:Astrampsychus. Joe D (t) 18:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


we may seem obsessive to outsiders, at times, but it's good to have defenders of the Wikipedia, against nationalists and other pov pushers. keep up the good work, dab () 17:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

very nice! (the WCD). Is it GFDL? So we could crosspost articles not yet on WP? Is there an out-of-copyright digital edition of the OCD (so there could be a basic stock of outdated but scholarly articles?) dab () 17:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I see it isn't (copyleft) :( dab () 17:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. I guess each individual article could be exported with their authors' consent. The strong point about wikipedia is that it's immortal. I mean, we're writing for eternity, here :) of course the articles deteriorate, but if you write something good, it will remain buried in the database somewhere, and that database will be backed up until judgement day -- inu any case, I use it as a personal notepad for any information that is (not my personal property and) in some way encyclopedic, and I know I'll be able to access it years from now without worrying about backups. dab () 18:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

non-Western Alexander[edit]

Thanks for your comment. I'm not really much of an expert on the topic, it just pops up on me from time to time. I'll check out that Classical wiki, too.--KASchmidt 20:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Siege weapons of Alexander the Great[edit]

I wrote the article about Alexander in Hebrew Wiki, and I have a comment on a correction you have made in the article. You wrote that the first usage of siege weapons was in Thebes, well its not quit true. The first time he used siege weapons was in a crossing of some river (forgot it's name) during the campain against Thracians. He deployed some ballistas to clear the other bunk of the river (you can check in Arian's book). Furthermore, can you name a unit which can be compared to S.A.S? I certanly can't. Maybe the Hyspaspist can be considered a special forses unit, but I wouldn't compare it S.A.S.
Gilgamesh he 19:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Ack! You're right. (I took a seminar in Arrian, I should have remembered that.) I was just editing the text down, not introducing that notion, but I should have thought of that. You should also note that Alexander's northern expedition is entirely neglected in the article. (Nor did it have the battle of Granicus until I added it.) As for your second part, the section and the entry is a stinking pile of crap. Note the "doublet" with sarissas introduced twice, once by name, once by description. I don't, however, feel qualified to write that section; I am not very interested in the military aspects per se. (I imagined they might be thinking of the Agrianian who got plugged into difficult terrain and situations, but who knows.) That others with far less actual knowledge about it do feel so qualified is sad... Come check out the Wiki Classical Dictionary, my protest against wiki-mediocrity, an effort to create a scholarly Wiki for classics. Lectiodifficilior 20:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
i am very active in the Hebrew project and have about 20,000 edits in a period of one year (about have of them on articles) and i think you are not right. Wiki is not a mediocre encyclopedia. In fact it is as mediocre as you personaly write it. If some article is not good enough - improve it.
As for Alex - I changed "Antiquity" to "ancient Greece" becouse in some ancient cultures homosexuality wasn't exepted as it was in Greece. I think your solution of changing it to "Greco-Roman Antiquity" is very good. I will try to improve the parts dealing with Alexs' army ( I wrote an article about his army in Hebrew wiki) Agrianins are peltasts and not some kind of special forse. Gilgamesh he 20:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I visited the dictionary. Maybe I will take some part in it, but my interest in classic period is limited to military history. Have you tried to reach a concesus in alex's article? If you did and failed to achieve it, did you consider asking somebody to be a mediator? If even this didn't help, maybe the best solution is locking the page by some admin. The english version is very poor indeed and a large portion of it deals with secondary stuff like the sexuality issue. I didn't even consider writing an entire chapter about this matter. It is so unimportant and plagued by modern interpritation of an issue didn't even exist in ancient Greece. Half of the aricled deals with some unnecessary stuff instead of telling the story. It should be rewritten as soon as possible. Gilgamesh he 00:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This is outrageous![edit]

What do you think about this: "Alexander (movie)" article? I found a paragraph saying this nonsense:

The movie is noted for going to great lengths, far more so than most Hollywood movies, to stay true to history. Most of the equipment and sets were researched by a dedicated staff lead by historian... There are several exceptions to this however, such as the anachronistic wounding of Alexander at the battle of the Hydaspes River, and what amounts to an educated guess for the depiction of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

What historical truth? The entire film deals with his sexsuality portaying him like as some kind of weeper. And i am saying nothing about dismounting heavy cavalry in the middle of the battle. Who thought heavy cavalry fights in this way?? I just looked forward to see how his phalangites throw their sarisas on the enemy. I was surprised they didn't.

I think the articles about Alex has to be rewritten. He is one of most important figures of ancient Greece and I am addicted to him from childhood. He had so many sides in his personality and focusing on some minor crap like homosexuality, ethnicity, his character??? (oh i saw it just now!) why somebody would judge an ancient greek with modern values? It is complete nonsens. If the article had been some 100-200 KB it would be possible to add some paragraphs about this stuff, but now it twists the article in a wrong way. 2/3 of the article has to be deleted as soon as possible. And I am saying nothing about the arrangement of the text. It is mixed to such a degree it took me two days to see all the nonsens. Oh! now I saw it took almost 700 edits to reach its glorious state.

I am sorry to say this, it's clear to me you love ancient history, but man, how can you live with this article? As you said - it is a large, stinking pile of crap.

In order to succed in rewriting it it is necessary to resolve all desputes in advance. I suggest taking this issue to a mediator. As a newcomer, I don't have any prejudice about this issue and I am ready to act as mediator. I am not a Greec so nobody can accuse me of any national pation. I turned to you only because you changed something in the article and it was completly random. if Miskin agrees to my mediation, we can start moving in the right direction.

Gilgamesh he 07:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


I agree with most of what you say, and especially with the tone of outrage. I don't think we need a mediator for the whole article—that seems outside normal procedures anyway. We do need one for the Macedonian issue, but I'm not that confident it would help. Ethnic edits will continue as long as the page lasts.

we can always lock it. Gilgamesh he 07:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, I did the response in two stages, by mistake.

I agree with most of what you say, and especially with the tone of outrage. I don't think we need a mediator for the whole article—that seems outside normal procedures anyway. We do need one for the Macedonian issue, but I'm not that confident it would help. Ethnic edits will continue as long as the page lasts. Still if you want to put yourself forward on talk as a mediator, please go ahead.

On your comments:

  1. I agree and disagree about the movie. I think they gave it a "Hollywood try," particularly on the small stuff. Certainly they ballyhoed its veracity and the connection with Fox—who, incidentally, signed on after the script was written. I'd say something like "opinions on its historical accuracy differ." Or, actually, I'd ignore the movie on Alexander the Great, and stick it on a dedicated page instead.
  2. I agree the page needs drastic slimming, but I would keep discussions of his sexuality and character. Alexander is so much more than his "history"; he is a transcendant figure in western literature and world culture. His character was a hot topic in antiquity. The argument is central to the ancient source tradition and still defines much modern scholarship. As for his sexuality, I think Wikipedia articles need to satisfy "common questions." There are a lot of grade school students who turn to Wikipedia to find out whether Alexander was or was not gay. Without belaboring the issue, I'd like it to explain ancient attitudes toward sexuality, and mention indications that Alexander's own attitudes may have differed.
  3. Your point about "balance" is well taken. On the Wiki Classical Dictionary we decided to split up the topic into very many subpages—the WCD started on Alexander exclusively. I'm okay with some balance problems, provided strenuous efforts are made to cut out the junk and ensure a decent narrative gets in too.

Now, the question is: How to go about it? My "cleanup" notices always get deleted. Maybe if we asked "What do you think is wrong with it?" and we all stated its problems the enormity of the situation would dawn on people and there would be impetus to revise radically. Shall we move this to TALK?

Yes, I am sure intentions of Miskin are good i suggest we ask him if he agrees with the mediation, under the condition that the mediation will be the final legal instance. If he agrees, I will be able to do something. Gilgamesh he 08:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

some new ideas[edit]

I read the talk pages of Macedon, Macedonian language and Alex the Great. I see now what you mean by "it can't be resolved". Now, after reading the talk pages I think the only possible way of dealing with this matter is locking the articles. Some people think Wiki is some kind of forum or chat room where everybody claims his arguments and "the reader will decide", well it's not the case. Wiki is an encyclopedia and as such has to follow the accepted academic point of view. Any deviation from it is a pure vandalism and has to be prevented by admins by locking the page. Have you considered this drastic meassure? Gilgamesh he 11:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I added a chapter about his army, I will appreciate if you can have a look and make some corrections in my poor english. Gilgamesh he 13:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I haven't. I'm not really up on how one goes about justifying that sort of thing. (Of course, on the WCD I lock an article whenver I feel like it.) I have the sense Wikipedia has very turgid processes, eg., start a vote by voting on what to vote on. Incidentally, I'll look at the additionn later today. Right now I'm rushing to finish some freelance. Lectiodifficilior 17:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
If it is the case, there is no cure for this article. The politcs will kill it. Gilgamesh he 17:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


I am a sysop only in hebrew Wiki, but i am sure we can find somebody who understands this situation. Gilgamesh he 21:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


What do you think about the book named "The Generalship of Alexander the Great" by J. F. C. Fuller? I am thinking about buying it from Amazon.
Please reply on your talk page, I am watching it.
Gilgamesh he 22:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Alex again[edit]

I saw your comment in the article. I am sorry if I had offended you, this was not my intention. I just wanted to improve the article, thats all. Please forgive me if any of my actions have ofended you. I am truely sorry. Lets see how can we continue further in repairing the article. Both of us agree it is as horrible as horrible can be. If this ethnicity section so important to you, so lets keep it. Gilgamesh he 10:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


hi LD, it seems you and Decius have taken the brunt of Miskin-sitting, and I was glad to leave the task to you. I think there is ample evidence now that this editor is simply unable or unwilling to learn, and it may be time to take it to dispute resolution (rfc, if necessary arbcom). Of course Miskin is not a troll, he is not extremely incivil, and he is all too happy to discuss (discuss, rinse, repeat). Only he never seems to get a single point others are making, and the discussion will only be over if he has his way. It is a pity that competent editors like Decius and yourself should be forced to waste time like that, and I do hope the arbcom will be able to put an end to this tedious episode (but of course only after a lot of additional wasted time). dab () 12:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome (was: Thanks)[edit]

Thanks for helping out with Alexander the Great. I haven't seen you around, so I'm pleased to meet you. I hope you stick around. ATG is plagued with such edits. Lectiodifficilior 18:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All part of doing recent changes patrol. It is truly remarkable the strange things people will do to articles. Kelly Martin 18:58, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Alex and wiki[edit]

Hi, what do you think about becoming an admin? If you will be an administrator you will be able to lock this article and we will be able to improve it. The recent homophobic edits are complete nonsens. This is our only chance to write it in a proper way. There is no point in reverting it 500 times, like it was during the last year. Gilgamesh he 04:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Alexander and pederasty[edit]

Thanks for notifying me. I don't think he should be blocked without a warning, so I've posted one on his talkpage. But if he continues, I'll block him. If you need admin attention against vandalism like this later, you can post on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks again. Shanes 23:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I blocked him now for 24 hours. Shanes 23:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • I would understand removing the image if you WOULD NOT LIKE or would think that it does not fit there. to avoid "editors war"; If you think that me placing it there is a problem I can email some of my friend and they will place it there(hence it will NOT be listed y the artist; in fact the person who writes from this account and Nick Gabrichidze as physical persona re not necessarily a same person.

The copyright can be changed for "fair use" if it is more convenient. If you feel like IMAGE does not fit there then tell me and I will forget about this page(I am not a this page creator after all and I respect the hard work of people who did create it). Otherwise I will change a copyright status and will place image back there(or someone to do it for me if that bothers you) within a few days OK? Please remember that ADDING content to wikipedia is better then removing staff. May be this on-line encyclopedia seems like full pot for some but believe me some parts of it( and especially visual information) is like desert yet.

Anyway I will do as I wrote; if you have an objection please get back to me, otherwise I will assume that "science is sign of agreement" if it's OK with you Cheers Gabrichidze 1:54, 18 June 2005 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia[edit]

The image you posted is not an "Artistic Representation" it's a "cleansed" representation, with all Muslim elements removed. This is the very definition of POV, akin to Photoshopping the Dome of the Rock from Jerusalem, or NYC from Manhattan. I also wonder about its copyright status. I saw that image somewhere once, and I did not have the impression if was GLFD 1.Yes indeed the image I've posted is an "Artistic Representation" with a "cleansed" representation, with all Muslim elements removed. I don't consider the umage as POV because was a time when the image of church was looking in this way. It is not something fantastic but an artistic representation of the church before the muslim coquest. I don't think that a recostruction of an image hurt someones feelings.I also wonder about its copyright status: the image is declared PD on orthodoxwiki , the te link on the image page. Considering the history of the church I don't think taht the reconstruction will hurt muslim feeling, because they must be very proud that the church was preserved almoust 100%. Q: How can you picture a former Orthodox Greek church? please reconsider the POV, is interesting from historic point of view, and remember that the church was protected and preserved when the Constantinopole fall. CristianChirita 07:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I sent him a warning. I don't think this vandalism has been rampant enough that a block is necessary, at least not yet. Everyking 06:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Minarets.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Minarets.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 14:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Logo4 medium.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo4 medium.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Colin Wells[edit]

*[[Colin Wells (Byzantinist)]] (born 1960<ref name="test">See [ Library of Congress Authorities] for "Wells, Colin, 1960-"; system does not allow permanent links.</ref>), author of ''Sailing from Byzantium'' (ISBN 0553803816, ISBN 0553382730)

Interesting edit.

I assume you know that on a hndis page, the entry should be:

(or whatever his notability is)

Perhaps it might be a good idea to create the Colin Wells (Byzantinist) page before putting the entry on the hndis page?

Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander the Great/GA1[edit]

Alexander the Great is being reviewed for Good Article listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow for minor issues related to coverage and authorial tone to be addressed. Any assistance would be welcomed. SilkTork *YES! 23:49, 31 December 2010 (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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)