User talk:020amonra

December 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Boudica has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Boudica was changed by 020amonra (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.854355 on 2015-12-09T13:00:20+00:00.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=696432379 your edit] to Samnite 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * territories. The Samnites agreed. According to Livy this was because they were not ready for war . In the same year the Volscian towns of Privernum and Fundi rebelled and ravaged the territories

Idem
Please don't use terms such as idem or op. cit. in Wikipedia references. Such terms work well in static text, where the order of references will be set once and never changed, but a Wikipedia article is a living document that will be edited many times after your involvement, including possible reorganization that will reorder the citations, at which point the idem reference will no longer be valid. For help in understanding how to cite the same source multiple times, please read Help:Citing sources. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=700615230 your edit] to Lucius Valerius Potitus 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * of the consuls for 449 BC, the year when the second decemvirate  Decemviri Legibus Scribundis Consulari Imperio; (Ten Men Writing Laws with Consular Power)

Lex Hortensia
Hi. I just undid your revisions to the Lex Hortensia page. The first one, which affected the notes sections, doesn't follow the recommendations here. The second wasn't much of an improvement over the existing page, I'm afraid. It had a number of errors, including of spelling; it used the wrong level headings; and it still is a bit inconsistent (the views of Cornell and the others are hard to reconcile). Can I suggest hashing some of this out in the article's talk page, rather than making such major changes all at once? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Decimus Junius Brutus Callaicus
 * added a link pointing to Galicia


 * Lucius Licinius Lucullus (consul 151 BC)
 * added a link pointing to Zamora

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scipio Aemilianus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus. 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) 12:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Third Macedonian War, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Achaeans and Gnaeus Servilius Caepio. 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) 09:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with deleting the info box "2nd Cetliberian War" form the "Numantine War" page and to remove this page's ridirect from "Second Celtibiaran War". This is because of erroneous information. The original contributor thought that the 2nd Celtiberian war was a first episode of two Numantine Wars and that the two were linked. This is totally wrong. The Second Cetliberian War and the Numantine War were completely sparate and the first one was centred on different Spanish combatants

020amonra (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This sort of change is best to be discussed on the article in question. Please use the "New Section" link on Talk:Numantine War to create your request and gather input from other users interested in the topic. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance.. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Roman conquest of Hispania
 * added links pointing to Leon, Merida, Toledo and Lucus Augusti

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Populares, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catiline conspiracy. 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) 11:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lycia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galatians. 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) 10:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bellum Batonianum, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Legion and Cohort. 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) 10:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Illyricum (Roman province)
 * added a link pointing to Probus


 * Roman province
 * added a link pointing to Syria Phoenicia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Pompey
 * added links pointing to Media, Illyricum, Arran, Aristobulus, Dura, Gaza, Kingdom of Armenia and Lucius Licinius Lucullus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sacrosanctity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patricians. 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) 11:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Your rewrite of Roman tribe
Hello, 020amonra. After seeking advice from other members of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, I've decided to revert your edits to Roman tribe. Because you obviously put a great deal of time and effort into your rewrite, it only seemed appropriate to explain the reasons for this decision.

To begin with, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Many editors work together in order to produce the best possible articles, gradually improving them over time. A wholesale rewrite of an article such as this might be justified if the article were a stub, or poorly written and organized, and if had not been maintained for a long time. But the article as it stood before you replaced its contents was reasonably clear and concise, accessible to readers, and well-sourced. It was not an old article; it was written just over two years ago, and it has been maintained and improved by various editors since that time. Under these circumstances, a full replacement of the article without any prior discussion or attempt to improve the article gradually and in cooperation with other editors was not appropriate.

There are also concerns with both the nature and quantity of the new material. Some of Wikipedia's basic policies include that requiring editors to maintain a neutral point of view, and avoid incorporating original research. Your edit summary emphatically stated that part of your intention was to correct "inaccuracies and wrong info... [and] very outdated views", and much of the current article reads as an argument over why one historical view is right or wrong. While it can often be difficult to determine precisely what constitutes original research, the article appears to contain a number of your own deductions based on various sources, and that certainly qualifies as original research.

Another problem is the accessibility of the text to readers. The various sections of the article contain now many extremely long paragraphs, that go into minute detail and often veer off on tangents with material that is not necessary in order to understand the topic of Roman tribes. The article comes across as a huge wall of text, much of which might be considered impenetrable by typical readers without a background in Roman history.

The fact that your rewrite has been reverted doesn't mean that your contributions aren't valued. There's clearly much useful material in your work, and it can be incorporated into this and other articles over time, allowing other editors the chance to see and respond to the new additions, some of which may require additional revision, and perhaps discussion on the article's talk page. I hope you won't be discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia, but will continue to help develop and maintain articles of interest to you. P Aculeius (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Roman tribes article
I see the point about gradual improvements of articles and collaborative effort. However, I disagree some of your points. Before going into this, I need to clarify that I agree that the article is very detailed (though I don't think the details necessarily constitute a going off a tangent) and that some material "might be considered impenetrable by typical readers without a background in Roman history." The part on the military levy under the early years of the Servian tribes is very technical (though the technicalities are not a tangent because the way in which tribes played a role in this in the 5th and early 4th centuries is very unclear and needs reconstructing) and could be reduced to a statement that they were the basis of the levy in Polybius’ days but their role in their early days is unclear.

With regard to the issue of collaborative efforts, is there a more efficient system than the hit-and-miss talk page? This article does need some serious improvements and I am not the only one who says that (see below).

I resent your saying that much of the article I wrote reads as "an argument over why one historical view is right or wrong." This is how you read/interpreted and is based on my writing about resolving inaccuracies and wrong info... [and] very outdated views”. Based on this you misconstrued the content of my contribution. My statement need not lead to me making arguments about what is right or wrong or me making my "own deductions based on various sources." It feels like a questioning of my integrity. I'm a history postgraduate and I know better than that. In any case, yes, there are very outdated, views, and inaccuracies, and, yes, there is wrong info. I am not saying this for its own sake or to pursue any particular opinion. I am saying this because I know the up to date historiography of the subject and I can see clearly the flaws of the article.

Problems with the article
The article relies heavily on Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities (27 quotes), which was published in 1898 and a 1970 (2nd) edition the Oxford Classical Dictionary (12 quotes). The Oxford publication had been revised and updated to reflect the latest scholarship three times since then (1996, 3rd ed., 2003, revised 3rd ed., 2013, 4th ed.) The article also quotes a work by Ogilvie, which was published in 1965. As a consequence, there is material which comes from theories which were around in the 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries which were rejected by subsequent historians a long time ago. Thus, some of the problems with the article are related to the fact that it does not use more recent sources. It does not keep up with historiographic developments.

Note what Eponymous-Archon wrote on the talk page for the article on 13 April 2015: "This page is overly dependent on the now well out of date Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities. It presents the ancient accounts in a very jejune way. It needs some serious work."

This comment on the talk page had not generated any responses in 1 year and 10 months. You do not even seem to be aware of it. So much so for the suggestion of just relying on this page. There is now a response from me. I agree with him.

In addition to outdated material, there are also problems with the fact that some things which have been written in the article which denote misunderstandings of the material. I have posted my comments on these matters on the talk page for the article.

No arguments about right or wrong and no original research
It seems to me that your impression that I was trying to argue "over why one historical view is right or wrong” and that making my "own deductions based on various sources" comes from your not bring aware that what I have written is based on current historiography and your not knowing what the current state of the historiography is. Your knowledge seems to be limited to date material and you do not even realise that.

What you accuse me of is far from being the case. What I have done is present a historiographic account. Note that the reverted article does not do that. I have not made any arguments about anything being right or wrong. I have I most definitely not made any deductions of my own from any of the sources, let alone used various sources the make my own deductions. As a history postgraduate I know how to handle the job in hand.

I have presented different opinions on some matters, clearly stated the disagreements and reported them in a neutral way and without adding any comments. One of these was about whether there were two tribal assemblies or one. I summarised the former opinion and quoted Botsford, Develin and Sandberg as examples of historians who hold this view and I wrote that Lintott disagrees with this - I left out other historians who also disagree to keep it more brief. Therefore, I presented both sides of the argument. I also pointed out that Forsythe disagrees with the view that there was a sole tribal assembly which was the plebeian one to provide a more complete historiography. There are no arguments about right or wrong and no personal deductions/original research. This is an example of the way I work.

With regard to Cornell’s reconstruction of the role of the tribes in the military levy prior to 406 BC, I have only presented his review of the questioning of aspects of the work of Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus on this matter by historians and his own reconstruction. I have simply reported what he wrote without adding anything and without any ulterior inferences or conclusions. Therefore, there is no original research here either. There are no statements about anything being right or wrong.

As for the other parts of the article, I have used several sources because I have made use of the literature, rather than just relying on dictionaries + this was also useful to double check the info + we are supposed to provide references. 020amonra (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's hard to reply to such a lengthy response clearly, but I'll do my best. First, whenever you consider adding potentially contentious material to an article or making immense rewrites (such as tripling the size of an already substantial article, or deleting whole sections), you should try to establish consensus by using the article's talk page.  Merely because a comment on the talk page doesn't have a reply posted doesn't mean that other editors aren't aware of it, as you contend.  The user in question had every opportunity to edit the article, and in fact did make four edits to the article on that occasion, and none since.  If he felt further edits were warranted, he was free to do so.  The article has received regular maintenance since then, and is obviously carefully patrolled by two members of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.  But merely stating that a source is old or an article is naïve doesn't go very far toward addressing an editor's concerns.  If you expect other people to make changes, you should say what those changes are and provide some basis other than general criticism of the source.


 * If there are things you'd like to write about that are, as you put it, "very technical", you should consider writing separate articles about those things. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, intended to give readers a solid overview of a subject, not an exhaustive treatise.  The level of detail in which you were writing would be appropriate for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, but made the article inaccessible to the average reader.


 * With respect to your contention that the content is outdated, you state that it contains "27 quotes" from one article and "12 quotes" from another. In fact it contains no quotations at all.  Material is cited to the sources in question, not quoted verbatim.  However, your contention that material in the article is "wrong, outdated, or inaccurate" doesn't provide enough detail for anyone to evaluate.  The article already stated that the purely ethnographic nature of the Romulean tribes was no longer a favoured scholarly view; other than that, the revised article was so impenetrable that it was impossible to determine what you were disagreeing with, with one exception: you appear to contend that the ancient authorities were wrong in asserting that there were thirty Servian tribes, based on your own analysis of other statements.  That, by definition, is original research, as is "presenting a historiographic account", since what your article does is analyze the opinions of different authorities in order to determine "the truth".


 * Your basic justification here seems to be that "older literature is wrong" and that your understanding of the topic is superior because you have access to newer sources. You're unwilling to acknowledge that as far as the basic concepts in question are concerned, current scholarship isn't that much different from older material; analysis of historical sources has evolved, and we have a better understanding of fine detail, but much of what is written still reflects both the biases of the author and currently prevailing social theories.  The article as written before attempted to avoid dubious assertions and overly precise analysis, and focus on what was known, and what was believed, both by the Romans and their contemporaries, and by modern historians.  Merely because something is newer doesn't make it more insightful, more relevant, or more correct; just as importantly, adding relevant material from newer sources doesn't mean throwing out everything that was written or said before.  If you want to present a revolutionary new understanding of the subject, then Wikipedia isn't your forum.


 * You seem to be under the impression that I'm impugning your integrity by criticizing your work. That's not the case.  There are serious issues with your writing style, the extent to which your article conflicts with Wikipedia policies on original research and maintaining a neutral point of view, the degree to which the article is accessible to readers, and your willingness to work with other editors instead of replacing their work wholesale while describing it as "wrong, outdated, and inaccurate".  This wasn't just my opinion, but the opinion of three other experienced editors in the project, who found the revisions difficult to comprehend compared with the article that they replaced, and who agreed that reverting the article to its former state was the appropriate course of action.  If you want to address specific issues in a way that would be helpful to the article, the best way is by discussing them on the article's talk page, one at a time, and not as a flood.  P Aculeius (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (consul 78 BC), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Po and Modius ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Marcus_Aemilius_Lepidus_%28consul_78_BC%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Marcus_Aemilius_Lepidus_%28consul_78_BC%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)