User talk:MMFA

Catalaunian Fields Article
Hey you asked me to talk to you in talks about the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains I may of mistakingly put roman victory. I should have put it as a Hun defeat. In every other article on this site as far as ive seen it is described as an Aneus defeating Atilla or Attilas only defeat. I have a viable source Where it says "When the new Eastern Roman emperor, Marcian, and Western Roman Emperor Valentinian III, refused to pay tribute, Attila the Hun amassed an army of half a million men and invaded Gaul (now France). He was defeated at Chalons in 451 by Aetius, who had banded together with the Visigoths." You can also look at the result, it pushed the Huns out of Gaul and the Visigoths/Romans held the field. It's at least a Partial victory especially in a moral basis with Aetius Being named the last Roman. Calling it tacitly inconclusive is not giving the reality of the situation, there was a conclusive tactical result. Atlas leaving Gaul. Attila himself even referred to it as a lose giving the verbal argument that he may kill himself rather than ever face an actual loss. You can see this in this documentary here Click the link and I have it already at the part that I am referring to. Please get back to me ASAP.

You have not responded so I will go ahead and edit it back

As I Have already said, I do not have it as a Roman victory, and you are yet to even look at the outside credible sources I have brought forth, please respond it seems that I need to edit just to get you to answer me I want to work this out but you have only addressed a single sentence out of my paragraph. respond to the rest of it, please don't make me change the article again for a response.


 * I guess you're changing the wrong page. First, these discuussions are supposed to take place on Talk:Battle of the Catalaunian Fields. Second, I did respond on your Talk page. Third, the sources you cited do not hold as much credibility as the respected scholars whose published, peer-reviewed academic papers hold. I just did some extensive editing to the article as a whole improving the sourcing. The battle is acknowledged by many authors as inconclusive. MMFA (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Look at all of these http://www.ancient.eu/article/995/ https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Catalaunian-Plains http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-chalons-attila-the-hun-versus-flavius-aetius.htm http://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-catalaunian-plains-451/ Literally, the only site that I can find not saying it was a Hun defeat is Wikipedia, it seems the accepted norm is that is that the Hun's lost. I believe what is on right now constituent Original work and is there for needed to be edited to what is accepted in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridiss (talk • contribs) 16:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You're citing websites only one two of which have credibility. It is not original work because the inconclusive conclusion has been reached by other authors all of which are cited and verifiable. I also changed it to the tactical outcome is disputed, not inconclusive. Why don't you actually read through and check the sourcing in the article. MMFA (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Ridge helmets
Hi,

Could we work together on this? I'm especially concerned about the phrasing of the description of the construction, which needs to be quite careful to avoid confusing the reader who is not familiar with the helmets. Also most quadripartite helmets have each half skull held together by a central strip, making 6 elements in total, this needs to be explained. Cheers Urselius (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Huns
I was following Priscus which links to the same things. So if it's wrong you might want to change that too. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Huns origin
hi, the origin of the Huns is explained here http://utigurs.blogspot.my/ --103.1.149.90 (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mon Calamari cruiser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old Republic ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mon_Calamari_cruiser check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mon_Calamari_cruiser?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) 09:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hun's genetics
Hi MMFA, could you take a look at the new genetics section that Hunan201p added to Huns? I have no idea whether it's an accurate summary of Hunnish genetic research or not, but I suspect it's at least a bit too strident and doesn't seem entirely encyclopedic.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Ermenrich It seems accurate but the problem with European Huns is that it's hard to identify Huns. For example he words it as "indicates one Hun was of Germanic ancestry." Okay sure, this man was a Germanic participating in the Hun system, not a member of the peoples that had migrated into the region. It's not accurate to call him "genetically" a Hun.MMFA (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Gothic descent
Regarding this revert, while I agree there is no certainty about the descent of Flavius Aetius, I do not see how things are improved by changing Category:5th-century Romans of Gothic descent back to Category:5th-century Gothic people. Certainly he was not a Goth, he was of Gothic descent at best. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Marcocapelle, yeah I agree. Maybe it should just be removed entirely since he's already in Category:5th-century Romans? MMFA (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll remove the Gothic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)