User talk:Nicknack009/Archive1

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

Back to User talk:Nicknack009


Hello, Nicknack009/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Infrogmation 09:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My, you do thorough work. Welcome to WP and to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. -leigh (φθόγγος) 08:47, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)


She'd feel right at home in a soap opera. :) 10:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Irish mythology

Hi there,

Just want to congratulate you on your great work, particularly as a relative newcomer!!!

We have an Irish Wikipedians' notice board for people interested in Irish topics - you may wish to visit it if you haven't already done so!

zoney talk 22:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ditto! Very much looking forward to more. There's only a few of us Irish Wikipedians, and not all are interested writing such archane subject matter, so keep up the good work. Fergananim


Hi. In the future, please don't use 'cut & paste' to move/rename articles--it moves the content away from the history of its creation, which causes problems with the GFDL license, as well as moving it away from the Talk page if one has been created. The "Move" tab should be used, instead. I've re-done it properly, so you don't have to go back and fix anything. PS The Move tab is a lot less work, anyway. :) Niteowlneils 20:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Talk

Look a little more closely and you'll see that's not what I did. I had created a new entry for "Tigernmas", not having searched enough to see if there was an entry for an alternative spelling (okay, my bad, but there's a lot of them). Then I discovered there was already an entry for "Tigernmus", so I combined the content of both under what I think is the more common spelling, and did a bit of formatting and wikifying. By moving the old "Tigernmus" page to "Tigernmas" you obliterated some content I'd added. But thanks to the "history" function it's back in in now. --Nicknack009 20:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I misinterpreted what I saw in the history--usually a redir with many editors to an article with one editor indicates a cut&paste move (and I stumble onto C&P moves once or twice a month, so my response is mostly rote). Anyway, the one article now contains the full history from both spellings, and all the cool info you've added, so I guess all's well that ends well. Niteowlneils 20:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


My edit was based on her entry at which is unequivocal that she is a pre-Celtic goddess later Christianized.Are there contrary sources out there? (A fiction project of mine involves trying to posit people-behind-the-myths for a fantasy in which certain Celtic (and other) gods were really wizards/wizardresses who got mis-remembered as divinities,then as saints,etc...trying to come up with something about which myths could grow and is also not contradicted by archaeological notice is exceedingly complex!)--Louis E./ 19:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's very little in Irish mythology that can be said to be unequivocally pre-Christian. It's all a matter of interpretation. The only sources for Cessair are the pseudo-historical texts which say she was Noah's granddaughter. It's pretty reasonable to say she may be derived from a pre-Christian goddess, but there's no way to say for certain. There are very few characters in Irish mythology whose divinity you can be absolutely sure of. The best you can say, even of the likes of Lug or Manannan, is that they appear to be gods. If you want to write fiction about them, don't use second-hand sources like the website you link to - you'd be better reading the stories and making your own interpretation of the gods and their functions and powers. --Nicknack009 23:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: you may be interested in a character called Mug Ruith, who appears to be a deity misremembered as a wizard. --Nicknack009 23:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well,into the creative stewpot he goes,but I do think compendium sites are useful.I was reading the Mabinogion story of Taliesin via a link at and some of the events mesh beautifully with the powers I wish to depict but others need to be changed.Of course Wikipedia itself becomes a secondary reference site on such things...are you saying it should not be used for writers' research also?--Louis E./ 02:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said don't rely on second-hand sources - they're good for giving you an idea of what to look for. You should be able to find links to most of the originals via Wikipedia. Best of luck with the stew. --Nicknack009 07:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2000 AD

Great job you're doing there!

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Geoffrey Keating

Why did you revert my edits to Geoffrey Keating? Since the article uses his English name, it should be mentioned first with his Irish name listed afterward in parentheses, just like all the other people listed on Irish name and just like every place name in Ireland. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I explained that on the talk page for Geoffrey Keating. Compare it to Romans who are best known by an English version of their name. The form is to use the English name as the title of the page, but start the article with their real name. Seathrún Céitinn is his original name, the one he called himself. Geoffrey Keating, while it might be the name he's best known by, is not his real name, any more than Marcus Antonius was really called Mark Antony, although that's how he's traditionally known. Comparing personal names to place names is irrelevant. Leave a man the dignity of his own name. --Nicknack009 21:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd also add that most of the people listed on the Irish name page are people born with an English name who have adopted an Irish version for political or cultural reasons. Their English name should be listed first, and Irish second. Keating, and Turlough O'Carolan, are different. --Nicknack009 21:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further Points

I do accecpt that peoples such as the Cruithne, Fir Bolg/Builg/Érainn did come to Ireland but I would still be slow to accecpt the term invasion. Think of them more like the Vikings and Normans who did arrive and conquor areas of Ireland but who within a number of generations became utterly assimiliated into Irish society.

Nor do I accecpt that the Gaels were one of these peoples, as the word is derived from the Welsh language which simply means raiders and denoted people who came from Ireland, whatever their ethnic origins within Ireland. A good example would be the way we still think of those who came to Ireland in 1169 and after as English (though they were mainly of Flemish, Welsh, Norman and Anglo-Saxon origins) simply because they came from England. Fergananim, 12th July 2005.


Hello, since you have contributed to the article Aine, you may be interested in voting on the question of whether to move Aine to Áine. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


Good job on trying to mantain POV there. Unfortunately WiccanWade has a bit of a reputation for historical revisionism (on this one topic) in Neopagan circles. But perhaps with further encouragement to cite sources and to discuss opinions on Talk:Mórrígan this can be resolved.

And even more of a good job on Mórrígan, in the face of several reverts that tried to undo your good editing. Well done. The article is much improved. --Nantonos 10:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006

Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 04:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi Nicknack009. If you have a moment, could you come and have a look at prehistory and its attendant talk page? Another user and myself disagree over its definition and I'm wondering about the meaning of the term in a region where the development of all those annals and the lack of direct Roman influence may have created a different idea of what prehistory means. I would be very grateful if you could help inform the discussion. Thanks very much

Thanks for helping out Nicknack, though I'm sorry to say that this may not be the last time I need to call on your services... adamsan 21:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
No bother. With your interest in Roman Britain, maybe you could pass your eye over the recent controversy between me and WikiRat over Caratacus and related topics? We've come to something of an accommodation but a third opinion might de-polarise things. --Nicknack009 00:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Wow. Well done for keeping your cool, I wish I had similar self-control. I have never encountered that story before and it does seem to require a few leaps of faith. I like to give anything about religion a wide berth and am not familiar with the early Christian sources in Rome so I'm afraid I'll have to sit that one out. adamsan 15:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Chicken ;-) --Nicknack009 18:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight

As a member of WikiProject Comics, I thought you might be interested in the Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight we have set up. Please feel free to vote on the articles listed, although bear in mind that a vote for a particular article means you are pledging to help improve the article. The goal of the collaboration is to improve articles to Featured Article status, as we feel Comics is under-represented in that area. Thanks for your help. Steve block talk 15:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

On Cogidubnus & Togodumnus

From our discussion at Tiberius_Claudius_Cogidubnus

I see your point. However, I'm not convinced that references to "Cogidubnus" or Togidumnus are anything but references which corrupt the name "Togodumnus" (who WAS Caratacus' brother). The issue then becomes - is there evidence that these two references are different people, and not one and the same apart from the assumption they weren't or the Roman claim they killed Caratacus' brother in battle? Is there evidence that the Romans did not mis-translate 'Togodumnus' as 'Togidumnus' or 'Codidubnus' in Tacitus's Agricola.

Consider the following:

Togodumnus and Togidumnus are contemporary, and you must admit have very similar names. Furthermore, you yourself write that Togidumnus's palace was found in the territory of the Atrebates which was the very region that Caratacus himself completed the conquest of when he completed the conquest of the Atrebates.

Does it really seem likely that a man not related to Caratacus, having a strikingly similiar name to Caratacus' brother, having a palace in a land that Caratacus conquerored, would be given rulership by Rome over what was once Caractaus' based primarily on the Roman claim that they killed a kings brother in battle? Doesn't that seem speculative?

It is more likely that Rome, by giving what was once ruled by Caratacus to Togidumnus (his brother), was both continuing to recognize Caratacus' family's claim to the thrown (in the name of having their client king recognized as legitimate), and was reducing the chances of having their rule in Britain questioned (the Romans weren't stupid and must have considered how many problems they encountered conquering the British).

I am trying to find evidence that Togodumnus and Togidumnus are separate individuals. The striking similarity between their names, their almost perfect geographic and temporal co-existence very strongly suggests the two were one and the same. The chance that these two weren't one and the same is just too unlikely. Simply Citing that different Romans sources have these two meeting different ends (one dying, the other living as client king) isn't sufficient. The Roman claim Caratacus's brother was killed at the battle of the Thames isn't convincing. The Romans have claimed many other untrue things.

I can see why you think this is conjecture, but no more so than assuming because the classical sources cite different ends to these two, they must not have been the same person despite the abundant similarities. Could you provide me with further info about the early references so that I might check them out myself? Could you also provide me with evidence that Claudia is connected with Cogidubnus rather than Caratacus' brother Togodumnus? WikiRat 18:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, from this translation of Tacitus' Agricola the name appears Cogidumnus not Cogidubnus making your argument even less unlikely. -- WikiRat 18:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me put this simply. The only sources for the existence of Togodumnus and/or Cogidubnus do not support them being the same person. Where else can we go with this? I'm well aware that neither Tacitus nor Dio Cassius are infallible, so I have added a bit to both articles explaining that, based on the sources, they are unlikely to be the same person, which open leaves the possibility that they might have been if you're prepared to discount what those sources say. But there are further arguments that they were separate individuals.
Interpreting classical texts in the light of numismatic evidence, it appears there were two major kingdoms in south-eastern Britain in the run-up to the conquest, one in the east ruled by Tasciovanus and his descendants, identified by the name Catuvellauni, and one in the centre-south, ruled by Commius and his descendants and identified by the name Atrebates. Kent, in the south-east corner, seems to have changed hands between them at various times. The Roman conquest was launched in support of Verica, king of the Atrebates, who was exiled apparently due to agression by Caratacus of the Catuvellauni. The first stage of the campaign was to conquer the territory of the Catuvellauni and put it under direct Roman rule, and to restore the native monarchy of the Atrebates for a generation or more. In the latter part of the 1st century its monarch was Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus. Is it likely that, after intervening in support of the Atrebatian king and conquering the Catuvellauni, the Romans would put a Catuvellaunian king over the Atrebates? It doesn't make political sense. It is more likely that Cogidubnus was a relative of Verica, and that the Romans either installed him as a friendly king or restored Verica, who was later succeeded by Cogidubnus.
If you read the Cogidubnus article, you'll see that in some manuscripts of the Agricola his name was even written Togidumnus. However the Chichester inscription, set up by the man himself, makes it clear that the consonant was a b. He is usually called Cogidubnus to avoid confusion because he is generally considered to be a different person.
As far as Claudia is concerned, I've said this before but you obviously haven't understood, so I'll explain it as simply as I can. Claudia is a Roman name, and more than that it's a Roman gens name. A gens was an extended family or clan, and the Claudii were a very prominent gens who contributed two emperors and numerous other important politicians. Every male member of the clan was called Claudius, usually with one or two other names, and every female member was called Claudia. Freed slaves became members of their their former owner's clan, and foreigners given Roman citenzenship became members of the emperor's clan, and took the appropriate name. Women could not be citizens, so Claudia must have been either the daughter of someone called Claudius or the freed slave of someone called Claudius or Claudia. She couldn't have got the name any other way. Cogidubnus is known to have been called Claudius, and he is therefore put forward as likely to be related to her. Togodumnus is not known to have been called Claudius, and is therefore a less likely candidate. As I've explained, there are any number of possibilities, and as Martial doesn't specify there's no way of proving any of them.
Where there are many options, you can't simply pick which one you'd prefer to be true, discount any evidence or argument against it, and then claim it as fact. You have to present the possibilities and argue which of them, if any, are more likely. I have tried to do that. In the interests of neutrality I have tried to accommodate the "Pope Linus was Caratacus's son" theory by reference to the evidence, while making clear that it is only plausible conjecture. If you have any further evidence to present or argument to make, you are free to do so (hint: "you can't disprove it" is not an argument). But please don't charge in and merge articles that are separate for a good reason. Keeping them separate allows all possibilities, merging them denies all but one. --Nicknack009 19:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

As always good response. I had no intention of making changes beyond what you have already done, though I was taking you to task on the approach you've adopted. I do see you considering both sides, and working towards objectivity.

However, your point is a good point about simply picking the opinion in a plethora of opinions that you would prefer to be true. And on this issue, the debate has moved beyond certainly. British scholars are currently engaged in this perfectly legitimate debate, and I am not the only one question if there were two separate men. This idea is not simply me choosing to believe one theory over another, preferring one to be true, the other not.

Though you may believe that I hold a less popular belief, this debate is not as settled as you seem to be suggesting. I recommend you look to Barry Cunliffe's book on Fishbourne Roman Palace (Tempus 98) which seems to discuss the matter, and play a role in the debate. Barry highlights some of the issues, and goes as far to suggest that Togidubnus likely spent time in Rome, and came back to Britain after the [Roman] conquest. Another argument that I’ve encountered is that the king whose name is found in Chichester was only one, and “Togidumnus” not “Cogidumnus”. Also please free to check out the work by Miles Russell’s work [Russell, M 2002 "Prehistoric Sussex". Tempus] which argues exactly what I am arguing.

Some of the other arguments that appear on this issue are; i. There is no evidence anyone but Rome used the name “Cogidubnus” rather than with the ‘T’ (Togidubnus). ii. There is no evidence ‘Togidubnus’ ruled the Atrebates before the Roman conquest of AD 43 or that he was anything less than a Roman appointee. iii. We know that Togidubnus didn’t mint any coins before the Roman invasion, and that only Roman appointees were permitted that honour.

Miles Russell further argues that;

“Caratacus’ brother Togodumnus defected to the Roman side shortly after the initial Roman landings at Fishbourne. Such a defection, at such a crucial time would have been vital to the Roman cause and would almost certainly have been well rewarded after. Caratacus fights on alone, Colchester is taken and the emperor Claudius has his victory. Togodumnus / Togidubnus and his people, formerly members of the Catuvellaunian group, were given land and legitimacy as "the Regni" based in the New Market town of Chichester, an area previously under the influence of another of Cunobelinus' sons, Adminius / Amminius. Identification of Togodumnus with Tiberius Claudius Togidubnus may also help to explain why he held the title of "Great King in Britain", for this is one the Roman state used when describing his father Cunobelinus. It may also go some way to explain Tacitus' later caustic statement that king Togidubnus' loyalty was in accordance with Rome's policy of "making even kings their agents in enslaving people" as Tacitus wrote in praising terms about Caratacus, leader of the British resistance, who remained defiant to the end, whilst his brother Togidubnus, however, lived on in grand and luxurious splendour in Britain, not because he had bravely defied Rome, but because he had whole heatedly surrendered to them, an act that would not have appealed to Tacitus' view of the noble and honourable savage.

The interpretation of ancient text in this argument, therefore, really hinges on whether you believe Togidubnus to be someone other than Togidumnus. If Togidubnus was someone other than Togidumnus than he may have been a ruler of the Atrebates before the Roman invasion, before Caratacus’ campaign (assumption). On the other hand, if Togidumnus only came to rule the Atrebates after the Roman conquest he could have been Caratacus (again assumption) despite the claim of death. One view seems to have this historical figure sprung, quite literally, out of nowhere, while the other seems to make a bit of sense.

I am not that familiar with Barry Cunliffe's views on Togidumnus having spent time in Rome but perhaps I should be. There might be an interesting avenue to explore. -- WikiRat 20:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

On Claudia (aka Gladys?) I did manage to understood your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Togodumnus did defect (humour me), and was rewarded by Rome, and Gladys was Togodumnus' daughter or niece, could she not have taken her father or uncles Roman name as her gens name?

-- WikiRat 20:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Cogidubnus, as I will continue to call him, only appears after the Roman conquest, and both Tacitus's text and the Chichester inscription are pretty clear he was a Roman placeman. It's also true that no coins of either Cogidubnus or Togodumnus have been found. I don't think any native coins are known after the conquest. I've described my favoured interpretation of who Cogidubnus was at Talk:Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus, which is as much conjecture as any other theory but which does make a bit of sense and is consistent with the evidence. As it's conjecture I haven't put it into the article as fact.
I think Russells' interpretation is flawed because, apart from Dio saying Togodumnus died in 43, Adminius's coins are largely found in Kent and not the area around Chichester, which was Verica's territory.
As I've said before, no 1st century Briton would be called Gladys, which is a modern name, and the Romans would not have used an illustrious name like Claudia to translate a foreign name. But absolutely, if Cogidubnus and Togodumnus were the same man, then Togodumnus would have been called Claudius, and therefore Claudia could have been his daughter. It's even possible that Caratacus was given citizenship in Rome and she could have been his daughter. I've never argued that this is impossible, merely that it's conjecture. --Nicknack009 22:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Renewed Research

I found someone who has written on this topic, someone that agrees it is likely Togodumnus and Cogidubnus are one and the same person. Professor Barry Cunliffe's book on Fishbourne Roman Palace argues that the two were one and the same. He is considered a credible expert by most. Here is a review of his book. I mentioned Barry earlier. Given that this idea isn't something I made up since there is at least one scholars who agrees, can you guys agree perhaps that a review of this article is necessary is necessary?. WikiRat 17:37, 3 November 2005 (EST)


Isn't the "other sources" version the one contained in the Lebor Gabála ie. stating she was the mother of Míl? That's what I've put into the Milesians (Irish) article.shtove 21:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the first three paragraphs based on Lebor Gabála - the fourth paragraph is information that was already in the article when I started editing. I don't know where the original editor got it from, so I ascribed it to "other sources" in the hope that it would getted filled in later. --Nicknack009 23:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


I see you moved the Caradoc page to Caradog Freichfras. If you don't mind, I'd like to put the page back at Caradoc and keep Caradog as a disambig, and link it from Caradoc. I think Freichfras is the most famous Caradoc (except Caratacus, who has his page there)--Cuchullain 04:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right that he's the most famous man of that name, but in all my reading on sub-Roman Britain he never appears without his epithet. To use an Irish analogy, Conall Cernach may be the most famous Conall, but his epithet is integral to how he's known. Also, Freichfras rather than Vreichfras is the standard Welsh spelling. --Nicknack009 08:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

User: WikiRat

Given that you've been arguing with WikiRat as well, and that you are apparently well-versed in the history of Roman Britain, I was wondering if you could come to the Talk:Celtic Christianity page, where we already have a couple people trying to reason with him. I figure if we get enough people to do this, he might at least think about following correct policy regarding original research. I've already notified a few other people who have been having problems with him.--Rob117 22:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but I've just looked at the article and frankly, I wouldn't know where to start. It's a complete shambles, virtually unreadable and functionally useless as an encyclopedia article. The only sane thing to do would be for someone who really knows the subject to delete it and write a completely new, substantial and thorough article, based on the sources and with a proper structure, so when the cranks (inevitably) come back out of the woodwork they can be managed. Celtic Christianity's mainly a sub-Roman topic, and my period's late Iron Age and early Roman, so I don't think I'd be much use. Besides, I have no desire to open up another front against WikiRat's "post first, find references later" campaign. I'll defend my areas of interest, but I haven't time to teach myself a whole new historical period. Sorry. --Nicknack009 23:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Nicknack009, we happen to disagree on points of history. We also happen to be interested in similar periods of history, and I have respect for your abilities, and capabilities. Please stop categorizing me a ‘crank’ because you happen to disagree with me. If you want cooperation consider the arguments being made (make some effort consider the enigmatic points I raise?). It is possible, that I have thought rationally about what I argue with sources before I make them. It is also possible, that by finding the middle ground, both of our understanding will be expanded. If you start by adopting a position of hostility, we will never get beyond that.

--WikiRat 10:42, 7 November 2005 (EST)

Two Alan Mitchells

Hi Nicknack - I've just started a page on tree author Alan Mitchell, who is clearly a different Alan Mitchell to the one you've linked at Crisis (comic) and Glenn Fabry - some disambiguating will be needed! - MPF 00:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Nicknack009 07:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Great work on Rome, thanks!

I must say I'm very impressed to see your work on the entries for the television series Rome. I was beginning to think I was the only one with any interest in those.

Just a quick note though on the discussion page for Gaius Octavian - there seems to be a contradiction with other entries. Conflicting reports from different source material? Not criticizing, just curious.