User talk:Hoshidoshi

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Werdan7T @ 22:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nero
Hi Hoshidoshi,

There is a discussion about some of your recent edits here. Please discuss why you're making these edits with the users on that page, so they will understand what you're doing. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  23:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, I have no idea why you are reverting my edits to the article. There are a couple of points I'm amiss about. Firstly, all my edits are cited, or have a reliable source which I have provided. This shows that I'm not just adding rubbish to the article. Also, all my edits are well prosed & factual, as well as relevant to the article. Further, I'm confused why you deleted all my references because "Revert. "J. Canning" is not an orginal source". I don't quite understand. A book doesn't have to be an original source to be allowed. As long as it's real & factually accurate or gives a special perspective, then it is allowed. I've converted my "public outcry" sentence to both military & public oputcry, so that both our views are expressed. I would appreciate if you didn't revert any more of my edits to the article without asking first. I've asked on the Talk:Nero page, but you haven't replied. I feel we can get the article to FA status, but we need to work together. I'm not making a personal attack on you when I edit the article, I'm merely trying to improve it. You seem knowledgable in the subject & I am looking forward to working with you on it. Any questions, suggestions or frustrations, ask me here. Have a great day, Spawn Man 23:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop reveting my edits to the Nero page. I am getting an admin to overlook your actions. I have spent a very long time writing on the article, & I don't want to have it reverted everytime. In response to your post:

"''I in no way want to discourage anyone from adding to the article, but I am quite frustrated when a secondary source (i.e. J. Canning) that I have never heard of is used instead of a primary source. Nero's primary sources are poor and biased enough, but they are all we have.  A secondary source has merely read the primary and is coming up with his or her own opinion.  The primary sources are all listed at the bottom and are online.  Go to the source, read it, find what is said and report on it.

I have have problems with a number of your edits. Specifically, 1) what primary source discussed a "public outcry" for Nero's removal? Most describe him as popular.  What is a "public outcry"?  All of the Roman Empire?  I doubt it.  A few Spaniards that supported Galba?  He was absolutely beloved in the east according to primary sources.  He was emperor and considered devine. 2)  Its not just fact and exadgeration. There are also just plain lies (i.e. dancing and singing during a fire)). 3) Original souce on gladiator fighting would be nice. 4) "Nero was often away performing opera or chariot racing. The majority of his work was deligated to his advisors and senior officers." Sources claim his advisors has a large role only in the first 1 (Dio) to 5 (Suetonius) years.   5) Nero had many failures as an emperor? What? 6) Why add this J. Canning citation randomly in places. No one desputes that Nero married Claudia.  Why the citation?  Are you advertizing this book or something?''"

You are discouraging me!! You may be new to Wikipedia, (I'm only assuming here), but secondary sources are allowed mate!! I've written 3 featured articles & I've never discounted any information because it was a secondary source!! "I have never heard of" isn't a trustworthy objection. I haven't heard of 99% of all the sources used on Wikipedia!!! Doesn't mean I don't trust them!!! J. Canning is the editor, not the title either!! However, you state that you got the primary sources online? Well internet sources are frowned upon enough, so don't you go saying that my book reference is worse that a citation you retrieved off the internet...

In relation to 1) - I've found a middle ground & used both of our source's texts. 2) I'm willing to let this go when you stop deleting my edits. 3) I've got a source, a secondary source which has information directly from the primary ones. 4) Yes, this is correct. You say "sources claim....", well my sources claim otherwise. I guess that will be up to the admin. 5) I was not responsible for this sentence, I merely changed one word to make it more readible. And then below I state what failures actually anyway. 6) I'm not adding it randomly. If you knew anything about FAC or citations, then you know articles fail FAC's because not enough txt is cited. I've added the ref only to the end of the paragraphs which it supprts the claims of. Also, how dare you accuse me of shameless advertising. I will be contacting a couple of admins to judicate on the matter. I don't want you blocked, so don't give them a reason to. I also don't want the article to be protected fully, but if your disruptive behaviour continues, then I will have no choice but to request it. This isn't just your article. Not only you are right. Spawn Man 01:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied to your comments on the Nero talk page. I'm allowing you a couple of days to find a contradictory source to depose my source. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * REplied again. Seeing your statement, I have come up with a solution to the "Gladitorial killings" part of our dispute. Hopefully you will accept my proposal, as it's a win-win situation that allows for both sources to be incorporated & gives the article a great sentence to put in... Thanks, Spawn Man 23:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My edits
Hoshidoshi, I have given you about a week now to come up with suitable references, some of which you have. However, none strictly contradict my sources & therefore, by the advice of the admins, my edits are allowed to go back up. I hope now that this dispute is out of the way, we can both get on with making this article FA worthy. So I'd appreciate if you didn't delete or revert my edits now, unless they're obviously wrong, in which case could you leave a message on my talk page & I'll get back to you within 24 hours. I think this could be a very good article, but it just needs our cooperation. Thanks Hoshidoshi, Spawn Man 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now we're getting somewhere. You haven't deleted all of my edits, & the changes you've made to the ones you have touched are generally better. However, I must object to you deleting all of my citations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 people (me (experienced editor), Firsfron (administrator), & Kirill Lokshin (another admin), have all said that citations are allowed on a paragraph level!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that I have your attention & my exclaimation marks are out of the way, have you even read what they wrote on the Nero Talk page????????? My source is reliable, & has even been used as a reference in a professional essay. Also, Kirill wrote that in some cases, later sources, such as mine, are better than the original resources. So stop deleting my citations & we won't have a problem. There is no rule in Wikipedia that states you can't have more than one citation on a single line!!! For example, we could have the sentence: "My head hurts". Now for that you can have as many citations as you like. You could have your ancient ciations, my new ones & somebody else could pu theirs in too!!! No limit mate!!! So stop deleting mine. Too many ciations is a very good thing & I have 3 FAs & 1 FL to proove it if you don't believe me!!!! So stop deleting or I will have no hesistation to get the article protected & have an admin to look into your conduct. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Colossus_of_nero.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Colossus_of_nero.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 03:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nero
Apologies for adding edits without discussion first. Please refer to said section. Djma12 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Great Fire
Hi Hoshidoshi. Here we are again :-)


 * I would disagree with the interpretation of the Suetonius. Though the beginning of the passage states malice (probably one of the famous embelishments of Suetonius), the rest of the passage clearly states he wanted room for the Golden House.  Let's look at the full passage:


 * For under cover of displeasure at the ugliness of the old buildings and the narrow, crooked streets, he set fire to the city119 so openly that several ex-consuls did not venture to lay hands on his chamberlains although they caught them on their estates with tow and fire-brands, while some granaries near the Golden House, whose room he particularly desired, were demolished by engines of war and then set on fire, because their walls were of stone. 2 For six days and seven nights destruction raged, while the people were driven for shelter to monuments and tombs.


 * Tactius, who I think we both agree gives the most non-embelished account, speaks of a possible motivation towards renovation as well:


 * And to this conflagration there attached the greater infamy because it broke out on the Aemilian property of Tigellinus, and it seemed that Nero was aiming at the glory of founding a new city and calling it by his name.


 * Given this, I think it's fair to mention that ancient historians also took strong suspicion that renovation was a motivation of Nero's, and not just insane malice.


 * I would dispute the "quite common characterization on major fires in rome. Though Juvenal does mention Rome "falling apart", he was a playwright who's phrases should not be taken literally.  I can count the number of major fires in Rome on one hand.  Not a rarity, to be sure, but not "quite common" :-)

Best regards,

Djma12 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for making the whole editting process enjoyable. Though we obviously differ in our degrees of sympathy towards Nero, our conversation remains academic and focused upon the interpretation of primary sources. Look foward to working with you more in the future!

Djma12 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Have updated conversation. Cheers, Djma12 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A few comments
First of all, nice work on the ! But I am curious what exactly happened to the old image. Was Bill Oaf's comment on the talkpage really supposed to be taken seriously? I mean, it's public domain right (as in -> author died centuries ago)? As far as I can tell it's not even a work of art but a form of vandalism, which probably makes any claim to copyright dubious at best. Not that I mind either way, but it seemed like a bizarre discussion to me.

Second, I've began work on improving the articles on Caligula and Tiberius, which you may have noticed. I'm a bit cautious with changing content currently, so I've restricted myself to structure, images and references. Today I've begun some extensive work on Tiberius, which until now was completely lacking any citations. I've taken my cues mostly from your splendid work on Nero, so keep up the good work! And if you're interested, lend a hand on Tiberius and Caligula too. Cheers. --Steerpike 00:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nero 3RR
Know that you have violated 3RR on Nero and have been reported. Str1977 (smile back) 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hoshi, I suggest you revert your last change immediately and seek mediation rather than edit warring. Let's not have your first block be over a semantic argument. Kafziel Talk 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I will close the 3RR report. Kafziel Talk 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Titus
Lately I've been working on the article on Titus. I consider it done for now, but it could use some more tweaking here and there. Anyway I was wondering if you could help me on a question regarding the Pisonian conspiracy. It's on the talkpage. Also, any other comments or suggestions to improve the current text are welcome. I'll be moving to Sejanus next. Regards. --Steerpike 12:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Suetonius II
The Caligula article states that his wife and daughter were all killed at the same time and place. Please correct whichever is erroneous. Thanks. Sideburnstate 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Caligula
The Caligula article makes it sound as though the assassins literally turned around and before the bodyguard could even react, murdered the wife and smashed the daughter to bits. Please correct the Caligula article to reflect your research. I don't know anything about it, I just noticed a discrepancy, so I really wouldn't feel comfortable. Sideburnstate 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan
Hi. Just until a discussion on the Reagan talk page actually takes place and users voice their opinons (as I am about to do), I have set the page back to it's previous form. I like your thoughts, however; please check the discussion page soon for my comments. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nero reverts
I think you misunderstand the concept of collaborative editting. Per WP:BOLD and WP:OWN, I am not obliged to pass my edits by you before putting them in. All that is required is that they fit WP:V standards. If you disagree, we can compromise on wording, but you don't get final say on what is and is not included.

This has been an incredibly frustrating experience as multiply cited text has been removed b/c they conflict with your POV. You have been reported to 3RR. Djma12 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Obviously, if someone puts in something bad and there is a corrective revert, the correcter is going to hit 3 reverts before the original poster."

This is a very frustrating statement. If you want to argue the merits of an edit via citations, that's fine. Making blanket statements about "bad" edits merely b/c they disagree with you is highly unproductive. Djma12 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was hallucinating but...
...wasn't Nero a Featured Article until recently? If so, what happened? Or was it never FA status in the first place? --Steerpike (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nero was never at FA status. I think it'll always have too much controversy to get there with all the Chritian haters.  Some people were talking about Caligula being ready for FA, though.Hoshidoshi (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Odd. Three weeks of exams are obviously starting to take their toll. Time to have my eyes checked! Don't give up on Nero yet, by the way. The article on Augustus had its fair share of controversies too, but it did reach FA status eventually. Like I said, moving away from ancient authors as a primary source of reference will probably clear up the most important disputes, both present and future. I know I've been guilty of the same errors in the past. My articles on Titus and Tiberius are especially problematic in that regard (Titus is nothing short of hagiography right now). I'll probably rework them sometime in the future. Then again, some people simply refuse to accept a balanced view on history, and will complain whenever the tyrants aren't condemned as strongly as they "should". I've now been accused of whitewashing Domitian too... Cheers. --Steerpike (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)