User talk:Aldux/Archive 13

Categories for listed grinding mills
Category:Grade I listed grinding mills, Category:Grade II listed grinding mills and Category:Grade II* listed grinding mills should all be renamed by removal of the word "grinding". Windmills had other uses than grinding wheat, the most common being drainage. Herringfleet Mill is Grade II* listed but is not a grinding mill. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point. The best solution would probably be to move the three categories to Category:Grade I listed windmills, Category:Grade II* listed windmills and Category:Grade II listed windmills. Just removing "grinding" would be a bad solution in my view since there are a lot of mills - most, actually - that have little in common with windmills.--Aldux (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. And let me make you my congratulations for your astounding work with windmills! The number of articles and their quality is really impressive.--Aldux (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's one solution. Presumably there will be similar categories for watermills created in due course (not so many watermill articles on Wikipedia yet). Thanks for your kind words about the articles. The quality of individual articles depends very much on the sources available. Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation
 The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our Italian permissions queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you.

List of places of worship in Mid Sussex
Hi Aldux; thanks for spotting the errors in the list, all of which I have corrected. I am continuing to build up the list gradually, so please keep an eye out for any more errors or inconsistencies; it's easy for things to slip through. Thanks also for the work you put in recently on categorising and assessing Brighton- and Crawley-related buildings articles! Cheers,  Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, it was a pleasure to read your carefully written and sourced articles.:-) Ciao,--Aldux (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

FLC
Sorry about my touchiness last night; it came rather on the back of the comments made by the previous reviewer, who only had to look at a map to see how impractical they were. I very much appreciate your support and the comment you made about the existing FL. And I am still of a mind to change the titles (adding "(urban area)" and "(rural area)") - an idea which came from your comments. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Norfolk Mills website
Thanks for your comments, just need to clarify something, see WT:MILLS Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

King Street
Hi Aldux. I was following up what appeared to be a sensible request to merge the stubs into one meaningful article where the buildings could be discussed in context, and the article built into something decent. I note that you have restored the stubs. I think that each of the buildings could develop into a decent stand alone article - though I don't see the value of a standalone at the moment as there is not yet enough information to justify a split per WP:summary style. My suggestion is that information on each building is developed enough for a building to become a section within the King Street, Bristol, and then, when that information is sufficently large enough to justify a standalone that would be the time to leave a summary in the parent article and split the building out into its own stand alone. This would be a win win situation. What do you think? (I note your comment above on how you use your talkpage - would you consider leaving me a message on my talkpage so I am alerted to your response.) Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 13:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello ST. The idea of writing an article on King Street isn't in itself a bad one, far from it; an article that takes in consideration the historical development of the street and how its buildings were replaced and the economic and social role of the street through the street. Regarding the stubs, maybe the Grade II listed buildings could be redirected as they have in the listing a minor importance; but I feel that the Grade II* listed building articles, as they can easily be expanded and are part of a plan to provide articles to all Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings in Bristol. While you may find some of those at the moment too stubby, they already provide some basic information: an image of the building, the dates of construction, the style and the material with an infobox. Also, my experience is an article has more chances to be expanded from a stub than if it is merged.--Aldux (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Aldux, Thanks for the heads up on this - I had removed some of these from my watch list as I've been focusing on listed buildings in Somerset recently & my watchlist is just too massive. I would support the argument for separate articles for the buildings, particularly the GII* which are definitely notable. I've added a note on the talk page and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol asking for help. I will try to do my bit in expanding them when I get some time.&mdash; Rod talk 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RCC or CC
You took part in Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3 there is a new requested move see Talk:Catholic Church --PBS (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

N'Djamena
If there is anything you could possibly add to the history of this city during Libyan intervention and/or surrounding periods, that would be appreciated. Thanks. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jarry. I'e got a few books on the period in question, so it won't be a problem fidig something to add; be sure I'll do it in the following days. Cheers, Aldux (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Getica (disambiguation) protection
Would you have any problems if I removed the semi-protection from Getica (disambiguation)? I'm not sure why but it has gone from a redirect to a disambiguation page some red links now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, by all means do.--Aldux (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, and thanks for informing me. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Aldux! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Dimitris Psychogios -
 * 2) Ahmed Moussa -

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Alboin
I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. If you have any questions or queries, please don't hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  07:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your help, Junipers; I've started working on the issues you raised.--Aldux (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion re Alboin's FAC
If I may just make a suggestion, your invitation to reviewers to reconsider their positions comes across as just a little aggressive. I realise that it's probably a cultural thing, but I just thought I'd mention it, as some editors can be very thin-skinned. Looking at the bigger picture, Brianboulton was right, this wasn't really ready for FAC, but looking on the bright side you can handle the facts and I can handle the prose, so no worries mate. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest that didn't even pass near my mind, thanks for telling me. I'll be careful to avoid seeming rude, I know that the reviewers are just doing their best. Aldux (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Another question: are you intending to use either British or American English spelling in this article? I notice for instance that you've got both "skeptical" and "neighbouring". Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm not quite sure what the "it" is referring to here: "Goffart notes other similar doubtful stories in the Historia and calls it 'telling a suitably ironic tale of the doings of depraved humanity. Is the "it" referring to the Historia, or to the doubtful stories? Malleus Fatuorum 14:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * British English would probably be better as I've used it more often in writing the article. Passing to Goffart, the scholar is referring to the Gregory's story of Alboin's death. "It" then means Gregory's "ironic tale" about Alboin's death, and not all the Historia. Hope this helps. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've fixed that. Having looked through much of the article now it's clear that the quality of writing in the lead was by no means representative of the writing elsewhere in the article, some of which is pretty good. Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a similar thing here that seems a little unclear to me: "The tale is treated with scepticism by Walter Goffart, who observes that it conflicts with the Origo Gentis Langobardorum, where she was captured only after the death of his father." What's being implied about the chronology here? Is "his" referring back to Goffart, as seems to be implied? Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, his/her seems to be one of the mistakes that slips more often from my editing. :-( To begin it should have been "after the death of her father", and that's one; as for the second yes, it's an issue with the order of the events: for Theophylact Rosamund was taken before the war, while for the Origo (and Goffart, and really most scholars) Rosamund was taken after the war.
 * On a completely different note, I really like how you "rounded", like suggested by Brian, the lead's conclusion: the mention of his link with epic poetry and his status as an hero-king sound just perfect for the conclusion. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm quite good at this. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My final question: "His fame was to survive him for many centuries in epic poetry, with Saxons and Bavarians celebrating his prowess in battle, his heroism, the qualities associated with his weapons." That last bit, "the qualities asociated with his weapons" really puzzles me. What does that mean? His proficiency in battle? Anyway, I've been through the whole article now and I'm optimistic that you won't get any more prose scares like yesterday's. Nothing's perfect though, so I'll keep an eye on the FAC and help if something does crop up; if I miss something, then feel free to give me a nudge. Good luck! Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Think of the context.. ;-) What are we speaking about: a legendary hero song by poets, and what does a hero have always? Flashy magical weapons. More seriously it's a hint to the Germanic concept that a hero's prowess is in some way transferred to his weapons; a typical example is the story told by Paul the Deacon of how a Duke of Verona violated Alboin's tomb so to put his hands on his weapons, in the persuasion that by taking his arms he would be obtaining also an amount of Alboin prowess in battle. Aldux (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I think that we need to be a little poetic, rather than the rather prosaic "qualities associated with his weapons". What about something like "the magical properties attributed to his weapons"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, only maybe "legendary" would be possibly better than "magical": the magic isn't so much explicitly stated, as hinted, possibly a residual of shamanic influences. What do you think?Aldux (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be bold and go for magical, but it's your call. For me, legendary doesn't suggest that ownership of the weapons would convey any special powers to the new owner. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, it's better avoid being misunderstood. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mithradates
Hi, These jokers have been called Mithridates with an 'i' for decades. Where is this 'a' business coming from?

It's hypercorrection from Mithras?

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the use of the "a" comes from "Mithradata", and it is often found in coins, but classical sources, both Greek and Latin, have always preferred "Mithridates" and this has been decisive in establishing the most common use through the centuries.Aldux (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And some zealots wish to politely dissuade you from this line of thinking? Varlaam (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In all honesty Varlaam, I'm having some difficulty understanding what you mean. Could you explain me more diffusely what you're saying? Thanks, Aldux (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry.
 * Your log comment has a world-weary quality, as though you've been dealing with this problem repeatedly.
 * What is motivating the 'a' camp? Why is anyone insisting on changing the spelling here? Where's this coming from?
 * Varlaam (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Generally speaking, some Iranian editors tend to prefer the "a" because it's more "Iranian", while the "i" is more Classical. It must be made clear that none of these is really wrong, and you can find scholarly works that use "Mithradates", but as yet "Mithridates" is still by far more common in English; and most important, if somebody wants to change the name to an article he should use WP:RM, not make unilateral changes to the article's subject while keeping the title the same, a thing I've noted has happened more than once. Touching another matter, I'd advise you to avoid such words as "zealots", as they are rarely helpful in solving an issue; it's always a good policy to try to be the most polite possible with the other part. Aldux (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I read Farsi, phonetically. I have Iranian "restoran"s near me.
 * Persian tradition is not relevant to English language usage, other than those borrowings like the vowels in "Moslem". Iranians have no special claim over Anatolia either. No more nor less than Greco-Romans.
 * There is certainly no shortage of POV in WP. "Zealot" describes people we have to deal with every day around here. Like when you click "Edit", and get that warning inside, "Do not edit this page. Any changes will be automatically deleted."
 * Not so? Varlaam (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they're right and you're wrong; simply, that I've discovered through time that politeness is always the best policy to persuade others. Certainly no people has any special claim on any article, and as for the name of the article, the only relevant issue is the most common usage in the English language, since this is an English wikipedia; if it was the Italian wikipedia, we would use Mitridate instead as a title. Aldux (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thurisind
I'll try and find time to take a look at Thurisind; thanks for the note. I don't know much about that period outside the Anglo-Saxons but I do have an idea of what you might run into at FA so I might be able to be helpful. I am a bit busy in real life but should get some time within a week -- feel free to nudge me again in a week or so if I seem to have forgotten. Mike Christie (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 21:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Byzantines
Hi, I see you were behind the conversion of Byzantines into a disambiguation page. Per WP:FIXDABLINKS, could you help with the link cleanup? Thanks, -- Ja Ga  talk 10:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I was planning to do it but I found myself occupied with other things. Just give me some time. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks. -- Ja Ga  talk 12:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thurisind
I will look but am preoccupied. You have a good reviewer in Yannis, one of the best. If engaged he will push the page forward quite a bit for you. Ceoil (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

edit summaries
Hi .. please try to leave edit summaries for your edits, it helps saving time to avoid checking what your edit is about. Also, your last edit in article Copt was a minor edit, please check the minor edit box as you make such edits. Thanks, Maysara (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine articles
Hello! I can certainly relate to your feeling of being alone, as I too have a soft spot for Late Antiquity and there are too few editors involved there. Now, as to your question, the main reason I don't go for FA is that most of my work focuses on peripheral figures who often get overlooked. Hence the material on them is usually not enough to get to FA. Also, after having tried a few FACs, I am not sure whether it is really worth the effort, especially since WPMILHIST A-class can serve equally well in military-related issues. Unless it is an article which I feel is important and complete and able to compete with anything else "out there" in quality (e.g. the Byzantine navy), I am not really prepared to take the trouble. In addition, I tend to switch focus between the various periods of Byzantine history every few weeks (and in these areas I am virtually the only regular contributor), so it will have to be an important subject to get me "hooked" long enough to see it through FA. So I've been trying to clear up the existing mess of inaccuracies in smaller articles in the meantime (that mythical Battle of Nisibis (530) was around for years until it got deleted) and adding to the dramatis personae.

That being said, I too would love to see Justinian get his little featured article star, along with Belisarius, the Gothic War (I've always been meaning to get it in shape, but never get around to it...), Procopius and John Troglita (a personal favourite). As you said, each of them would be a task of truly gigantic proportions, certainly too much for any one editor. If you want to collaborate on any article, I'd be able to get access to a ton of sources, the only problem on my part would be time. Any particular articles in mind? Constantine  ✍  16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can expand on Peter the Patrician, I'd be grateful. I am not really good with literary stuff, and that is really what is missing to get him to FA. BTW, check your email... Constantine  ✍  18:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of War in Darfur
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article after an editor placed a reassessment tag on the article talk page. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:War in Darfur/GA1. I have delisted the article as it is not in a good state. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Venetian Albania
Ci aiuteresti un po in un'articolo che purtroppo e' andato alla deriva (infatti era meglio secondo me tre anni fa), Venetian Albania? Servirebbero citazioni da fonti in Italiano. --  S ulmues (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sulmues, nice to meet you :-) My problem is that I'm not really a great expert on this topic and I don't think I have any books on the argument, and I'm doubtful fully reliable and up-to-date sources can be found online. I gave a look at Google Books; maybe you should ask the help of somebody who has some knowledge of German, as Das venezianische Albanien (1392-1479) seems useful and reliable and offers a limited preview option. How do you think I can be of some help, more exactly?
 * Post Scriptum: To speak of something completely unrelated, it's better if you always use in comunicating with other editors only English; sadly, I've noted there's quite a climate of suspicion always clouding Balkan-related articles and this may bring to often unfounded accusations or at least suspicions of not using English for some covert reason; to avoid this, it's always better to use English. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll do English from now on, it's just that I find a lot of pleasure to refresh my Italian. "Das Venezianische Albanian" is in my pipeline, but my German is not as strong as my Italian, besides, I believe that there are way better Italian scholars than Schmitt. That would be my question to you: who are the best Italian scholars for the Republic of Venice.
 * Another thing: I just brought Skanderbeg to GA and I believe that your involvement would bring it to a solid GA, and in 2011 with some more collaboration between you, Balkanik and Turkish editors, would safely go to FA. I noticed that you have done some edits there and I would really need your help with some references, such as "Archivio del Gran Priorato di Napoli e Sicilia del Sovrano Militare Ordine di Malta, Napoli", which I thought could have been entered by either you or Attilios. I'll actually give him a ping to come here and let's see if he can help. Thank you so much for your time. --Sulmuesi (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sulmues. Sorry for this late answer, but due to work I've been offline for a couple of days. First, as I sad previously, I must caution you that I am in no way an expert of Venetian history. That said, I'd say that among the historiography on the topic an important figure is certainly Roberto Cessi who gave way to the modern scholarship on the topic and is still relevant regarding the relations in the Adriatic sea. Giovanni Cracco and Angelo Ventura played an important role in contesting in the 1960s the glorifying interpretation of Venetian history provided by Cessi and his followers. In general, the most recent Italian studies on the ground of the study of the administrative and social structure of the Republic have tended to redesign the relation between the capital and the Italian continent, tending to view Venezia as having rapidly changed from a maritime state to a regional power. A key historian worth mentioning is Cozzi, but there are really heaps of them, as Italian historigraphy has always been quite developed.
 * Regarding Skanderbeg, I can help a bit with that one, since it's something I know better than the previous one; only, are you really sure you want to? ;-) (demonic smile follows) I can be really, really fastidious when it comes to reviewing sources, and quite a number of the ones that support the inline citations don't really pass the RS guidelines, and certainly would never survive a FAC process that can be really demanding. From a cursory look, there's still a lot to do before bringing it to the FAC, but if there's goodwill among editors it can be done.Aldux (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Issue around sources
Hi Aldux.

Thanks for your comments and your concerns. Please be assured that I take no offence :) Regarding the use of Triumph and Tragedy as a source, I have been careful to use it as a very minor source for the articles, and reflying on other more reputable sources as the principal sources for the articles. That being said, as that is unacceptable, can it be cited very occasionally in conjunction with another more reputable and established source? (eg, Ref: Norwich, pg. xx; Canduci, pg. yy)?

Regarding the use of Finlay and Gibbon, I have been in touch with User:Cplakidas, whio has given me some handy recent sources for use, so my reliance on these older sources should now diminish, although I don't think one should discount them altogether. I agree about the use of Primary sources, and I shall only use them (such as Dio or Herodian) when I am quoting them directly for a particular purpose. I should say that I mainly cite from these sources when another secondary source refers to them (eg Martindale), and to prevent a repetition of "Martindale, pg. xxx", over and over again, I break it up with citations from the Historia Augusta, etc, with the section that Martindale and others cite from. But if that is unacceptable, I shall cease that practice.

Please have a look at my most recent revisions Leo VI the Wise, Antoninus Pius and Arnulf of Carinthia, as I have attempted to address some of your concerns already. Please let me know if these are on the right track. Regards, Oatley2112 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional feedback, Aldux. It is much appreciated. Please have a look at the updated Antoninus Pius article, and see if that is closer to what we are after. Regards, Oatley2112 (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring complaint...
There has been an Edit Warring complaint filed against you here. Dinky town  talk  02:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Helmichis
I've had a go at copyediting the lead (please revert anything I messed up) and will try to look at the rest of the article; I am a bit busy both in real life and Wikipedia right now but it's the sort of article that interests me, so I'll see if I can find some time. Thanks for the note. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'm done with the peer review. It's a fine article; really the only significant work it needs is a native-language copyedit.  Good luck with it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Attaleiates
Hi Aldux. PMAnderson has moved the article to the Latin version again without consensus and disabled the move back, through the redirect option, by adding a category to the redirect. Can you please restore the status quo ante before a formal RM is made? Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Big big Sigh :-( I was sort of afraid something like this could have happened. I really don't know for sure which would be the best thing to do, and Pmanderson seems so taken by this thing that he'd most certainly revert back immediately, and it's been a very long time since I last blocked anyone, and I don't want to restart now, frankly. More importantly, I've noticed Constantine raised the issue at the WP:ANI: hopefully, some positive solution may get out of there.Aldux (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Getica
Hi, I was in the process of creating content for Getica (Pârvan) by Vasile Pârvan and Getica (Criton) by Criton of Heraclea. I created first the stubs and I was going to work on it. But I saw you removed all of them. Could you please explain the rationale? How much content should it be in a stub article before it gets merged? Also, isn't it better to check with the orginal article creator's plans before deleting/merging content? Thanks. --Codrinb (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You see, the point is that at the moment neither of them have any more content then what is contained in the original articles on the respective authors. If you feel like you can expand the article through the use of uptodate reliable secondary sources and pass WP:NB than do, but since Parvan's article is currently just a stub I believe you should first consider inserting the content on his books there. Regarding Criton's book, WP:NB standards don't apply in the same way as for a contemporary book, but instead what is invited is a more common sense approach: "We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature." Unfortunately, nothing survives of Getica, and not even of the work it influenced, the Dacica; here to, I'd invite you to put your effort on Criton, a stub too, as I'm skeptical the article on its own, even with the best effort, can every avoid being a stub. I hope I've been helpful, but don't be afraid of asking further questions. Ciao,Aldux (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed answer. I see the points, but here is my thinking. I find the notability/not enough content policies very subjective when it comes to ancient history, especially of less known or less glorious nations like the Dacians, my subject of work and interest. My goal is to make this little known history (inherently of questionable notability) available to the world. As part of that, I was hoping to create stubs to which I came back and/or invite others to participate. But if the stubs get deleted/merged, this will defeat the whole purpose. I also opened a conversation here and I welcome your thoughts. Your suggestion about expanding the parent stubs is good and I will focus on those when I have the bandwidth. Are there any guidelines for notability of ancient history articles?--Codrinb (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're a great optimist, I see ;-) I don't want to seem a patronizing a.....e, but my my long sad experience is that stubs on ancient history like these in the end tend to remain stubs, as the number of editors available once you cut out the Greeks and Rome before "decay". I myself I'm now dealing with the Gepids, a much less popular topic than the Dacians. Remember, notability regards articles; so while Parvan's Getica may not be notable, Parvan probably is, and the criterias aren't, at least for modern books, so subjective; as you can see at WP:NB. For ancient books yes, it is more subjective and linked to common sense. For example, what's the point of having an article on Criton's Getica if it just repeats what is told under Criton? Also, all such articles are vulnerable to speedy deletion (CSD) per A1, A7 and especially A10. As for a specific guideline for ancient history, there are some national guidelines for naming, like WP:GREEK, but no specific criteria. BTW, I've seen your Dacia Ripensis, you've made a really nice work. If I can put just a tiny piece of advice, there's no need for all those quotations in the footnotes, we're an encyclopedia after all, if it's not highly controversial the ref indicating where to look is generally considered enough. Oh, and I'll give a look at the policy issue you raised. Ciao,Aldux (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If that's not stonewalling, what is?
Hi Aldux,

The definition of "stonewall" is "refuse to cooperate, especially in supplying information", yet when I referred to someone's refusal to answer a simple yes/no question, despite being asked at least five times   , as stonewalling, you say this is not stonewalling. If you don't think that's stonewalling, what do you think stonewalling is? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you don't seem to be asking, but obsessively demanding an answer that may be satisfying to you, and this is rude and an exemplary case of harassment, which, as I hope you know, is frowned upon in wikipedia. I don't think you did it on purpose, but this sort of behaviour is disturbing and I warmly recommend you to avoid it in future. Bye, Aldux (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but whether I'm asking or demanding, the refusal to answer is still stonewalling. The refusal to answer questions is a pet peeve of mine, and I suppose I get a bit obsessive about it.  But I just can't imagine refusing to answer a simple yes/no question like that about a position I've taken.  I mean, are we in these discussions just to share our opinions and run, or are we trying to understand each other (and our selves) and hopefully find common ground and consensus through the discussion?  If a position does not hold up to scrutiny, why maintain it?   Why would you want to hold a position that does not hold up to scrutiny? How do you know whether your position holds up to scrutiny unless you hold it up to scrutiny?  So, I presume we all want the meaningful discourse and not just a pointless like it/don't like it festival, and so I do get frustrated when others are simply not forthcoming about what they're saying and why.  Then, when somebody stonewalls like that, and I call them on it, and a third party declares it's not stonewalling, that really burns me.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I get your point of view. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)



Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Talk:Alexander the Great/GA1
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! 23:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

NEed help on a move
i made a mistake on adding a colon on DJMax Portable: Black Square and it can't be reverted. Could you help?Bread Ninja (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
My thanks for your hard work. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! :-) It's going to take along time to complete yet, but at least the Latin part is already in quite good shape. Ciao, and thanks again, Aldux (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Request
Hello Aldux! The article on Thomas the Slav is currently undergoing a MILHIST ACR. Although it'll probably pass as it is, I'd feel more comfortable if you could have a look at it, especially since I intend to bring it to FAC eventually. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  12:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ciao! :-) Sure, it will be a pleasure, just give me some time to read it carefully, but from the first glances I gave it seems great.Aldux (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Take your time, a thorough review is why I asked you for (and Malleus Fatuorum). Mille Grazie! Constantine  ✍  20:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hi!
You think I'm making lots of edits? I consider it a good thing if I can actually find the time in an evening to improve an article as I had with Gundobad. (I hope I don't sound combative; my affect as I write this is closer to being surprised at that comment. I honestly don't have much time to be productive at the moment, & my contributions depend on doing a lot of research first.) I wouldn't mind helping you with creating a FA, but I'm not very interested in participating in the process; I don't have a good track record of playing nice with other people over FAs, & at the moment I don't feel very friendly towards the other people who are active there. But I would be happy to review any articles, or contribute information to improving them. (BTW, you wouldn't have Odoacer or Aegidius in mind? I've been accumulating material to rewrite both of those. The first omits several important bits of information, & the second depends on some, frankly, dodgy sources.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I get what you mean perfectly :-) There was a time when I could do like nothing over a hundred mainspace edits dailly; now my real life doesn't give me much time for wikipedia. As for disputes, one of the reasons I mostly edit late antique article is that there it's mostly quite peaceful, as I just don't have patience for drama. More seriously, regarding the last issue, it's been actually a lot of time I've been thinking of a massive overhaul regarding Odoacer, but I'm still accumulating sources; regarding Aegidius, I didn't have this one in mind, but I do have a number of pretty good secondary sources on him, so I might as well take advantage of the proposal and make the article decent, as, like you observed, the sources there at the moment are questionable at the least. Ciao! :-)Aldux (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I just made the first steps of my intended overhaul of Odoacer. What do you think? -- llywrch (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You did a great work: I'll just make a few observations. From the beginning:
 * "Except for the fact that he was not considered "Roman" Odoacer's ethnic origins are unknown".
 * This isn't fully correct: apart from the scare quotes that should be avoided, all scholars agree he was of barbarian ancestry, and thus it is pretty universally accepted by historians that he wasn't Roman, so it can be pretty much treated as a fact.
 * It may be my impression, but regarding the link Edeco the bodyguard - Edeco Odoacer's father you are way too cautious; it's pretty much the large majority opinion; only McGeorge denies it openly, and the PLRE in its entry devoted to Edeco treats him as a single person. A mention should also be made that according to McGeorge the Hun theory has "since been discredited".
 * Regarding the other section, its really fine; only, "some" sounds a bit weasel and it is accepted as a fact by the standard PLRE, but I agree caution is wise here. Hope I didn't sound like a patronizing xxxxxx ;-) Anyway, these are just my 2 cents.Aldux (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to your points in order.
 * I used the "scare quotes" because I didn't know how to better explain the point. And by this point, the difference between "Roman" & "barbarian" had become nominal. (If you can rephrase this better, please do! I don't consider this article in any way finished, & I don't consider my writing style beyond improvement.)
 * By "McGeorge" did you mean Macbain? In any case, I'm not clear about what the consensus is in scholarly circles on Reynolds & Lopez's article, but they make sense -- especially if one simply considers the primary point of their article was to make the case Odoacer was not German. (Maenchen-Helfen's objections were primarily based on his defense of the old Germanic identities; I'll admit I present his contribution far more positively than they probably should be -- but it is fair to point out names do not always accurately indicate ethnicity.) My reading of Macbain's article was that he was making the point that just because Odoacer might not have been Germanic, & likely associated with Attila, it doesn't mean he was Hunnic. And IMHO, even if his name reflects his ethnicity, Odoacer's native language might have been one of the other Ural-Altic languages, say Hungarian. But to put that in the article would be to insert original research.
 * As for Odoacer in Gregory's Decem Libri Historiarum, I had to say "some" because -- although I believe it is likely -- I don't know offhand any other experts who assert this beyond Reynolds, Lopez & Lewis. If you can improve on it, again please do!
 * One more item I plan on adding to this article -- something I'm surprised no one else has added -- is that the original of one of Odoacer's official documents exists, making it the oldest original legal document associated with Rome; the document survived in the Ravenna archives, along with a handful of 6th & 7th century documents written on papyrus. If I don't get to making that contribution, please do it for me. (I can provide you the necessary citations.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, a common distinction was generally given by the law: Romans were those who were under Roman law, while Barbarians were under custom; but I agree the distinction is much less clear-cut than usually thought, but at the same time of fundamental importance from the Roman viewpoint.
 * Regarding McGeorge I really should have been clearer: I mean the latter's book Later Roman Warlords; regarding McBain, you're right, he too doubts the identification. But really, I pretty much agree with all the way you imposted the section, and I myself would have written the section in a way to reach the same conclusion, which is that we don't really know for certain is identity (I remember that Walter Pohl, a scholar especially interested in ancient Germanic and nomadic ethnogenesis explained how an individual could have many ethnic identities, and I seem to recollect that he made the example of Odoacer, but I don't have the book where I read it under hand now).
 * Well, concerning Gregory of Tours, always McGeorge (I know I'm a bit boring here, but he's the most detailed I've found on the early Odoacer and his rise to power) says it is "often" repeated that Adovacrius in Odoacer, and mentions a few supporters; personally McGeorge strongly disagrees, and that with quite solid arguments IMHO.
 * This last issue you talk of, I must confess with shame, I really know: I knew a little of the papyri, but not of any connection of them with Odoacer. Anyway, more generally speaking, I think I'll take advantage of your work to make some tweaks and had some other interpretations and material from other sources. Don't be afraid to revert, trash, or anything you fel best for the article, I've got many defects but at least I'm not touchy :-) Only (returning to my defects), remmember how lazy I am ;-), so some time may pass, especially since I've got to make minimally decent, as promised, Aegidius before.Aldux (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Chad
I noticed you reverted the orthographic map back to the AU map saying it was more accurate. Is there something wrong with the orthographic map? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas the Slav
Hello Aldux, I hope you are well! I am reluctant to do this, but the FAC on Thomas is in danger of failing because of low participation and half-finished reviews. If you can, please have a look. Constantine  ✍  16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say it's quite an unfortunate moment for this, as I have exactly at the same moment an article under FAC review, and thus suspicions of foul play against us can legitimately be made. All the same, I'll offer a review (even if I doubt I'll find much to add: all I could say I said it in the MILHIST A-review) and the good people at FAC will decide whether to accept it or ignore it. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

talkback
- Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thurisind at FC
Sorry to have left it off the list. John Broughton kindly pointed this out, and I've now added it. Congrats. Tony  (talk)  12:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Venetian Ionian Islands
Hello. I am addressing to you about this article. You are an administrator, right? Somebody changed the title of the article to Ionian Islands under Venetian Rule stating that it is more correct. I am new here but as I was going through some Wikipedia rules I found out that nobody can change the title of any article whithout proposing it in the talk page first, is that right? He didn't do it. So I am asking if you can do something like change the title back to Venetian Ionian Islands. I don't think it's wrong; I read this before choosing it as a title for the article. Furthermore there are many other article following this style eg. Roman Britain, Ottoman Greece etc. Αmicably --Marcofran (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Helmichis/GA1
Interesting article. I've made some edits as I was reading. Please feel free to amend or question any of my edits. I've put the GAN on hold to allow you time to look into some issues I've raised, and also to give me a little more time to research sources. My main qualms are regarding building the lead a bit more, clarifying for the reader the focus of the article (is it about an historical figure or an historical event), and covering some of the later interest in the story, particularly from a Romantic point of view. I don't see any of this as being significantly difficult, and feel that the article will be listed once we've addressed those issues. Regards  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  20:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in getting around to passing this. Well done on the article. What's your next target?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  21:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)