User talk:Oetylus

April 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Manius has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2017 (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: Manius was changed by Oetylus (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.925153 on 2017-04-11T20:22:19+00:00.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Manius. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  04:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

VANDALISM IS YOUR MEDIOCRE. THERE ARE FIVE BASIC PRINCIPLES... ONE IS VALUDATION!

WHEN YOU ACCUSE SOMEONE YOU SHOULD BRING PROVES... OF WHAT YOU SAY!

YOU MAKE,PERSONAL ATTACKS WITH NO PROVES, PLUS'YOU PROVIDE FALSE INFORMATION OR NOT VERIFIED SCIETIFICALY!!

PROVE IT THAT I AM WRONG!


 * You mean you don't realise your contribution history is publicly viewable, and that ClueBot does not often err when it comes to reverting unproductive edits? — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 04:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IS THE POINT! YOU SAID ME A VANDAL... FOR WHAT? PLEASE SPECIFY AT LEAST ONE OF MY IMPROVEMENTS THAT IS NOT CORRECT... OR FOR WHAT NORM OF THIS SITE I AM NOT IN ALLIANCE!

WHAT I MEAN OR WHAT TO YOU MEAN, LETS KEEP IT FOR OURSELVES. EXPRESS YOURSELF IN PRIVATE

IF FEEL SO SORRY THAT I HAVE TRIED THROUGH PAUSANIAS, PLOUTARCUS, STRAVON..TITO, CICERON... ORIGANLLY DOCUMENTS IN ANCIENT GREEK OR IN LATIN... TO GIVE THEM TO YOU AS KNOWLEDGE!

EVERY SENTENCE I HAVE WROTE IT IS AT LEAST 2 HOURS WORK!

COUNT THEMM, COUNT WHAT YOY DELETED AND FIND OUT WHAT IS YOUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE VANDALISM RATIO PER SEC

I AM OUT!'

Edits to Manius and Manius (praenomen)
[I've moved your comments from the Manius talk page here, since this is a more appropriate place to discuss them. P Aculeius (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)]

The information you provided are not verified and so not scientifically accepted.

THIS IS NOT A LATIN DICTIONARY PAGE

Mānĭus, i, m., and Mānĭa , ae, f. mane, I.a Roman prænomen, usually abbreviated M'., Varr. L. L. 9, § 61 Müll.; cf.: Manius praenomen dictum est ab eo, quod mane quis initio natus sit, ut Lucius, qui luce, Paul. ex Fest. p. 148 Müll. A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by. Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879. The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

If it is so then you should add this:

praenomen priːˈnəʊmɛn/ noun noun: praenomen; plural noun: praenomens an ancient Roman's first or personal name, for example Marcus Tullius Cicero. Origin Latin, from prae ‘before’ + nomen ‘name’.

And please try to explain us what is the difference between Manius and Prænomen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:582:1CD6:8D00:DCBF:C312:96BC:E0C5 (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

FALSE 1. "For the praenomen itself, see Manius (praenomen)." for the praenomen its self, see praenomen that's CORRECT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oetylus (talk • contribs) 04:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Your edits are being reverted because it's not clear what you're saying or why, or what you're trying to accomplish; because you seem to be unfamiliar with or confused about basic Wikipedia concepts such as disambiguation pages, the difference between articles and talk pages, the purpose of hatnotes, and whether articles can be about words and names; because you're adding questionable sources in places that don't need citation; and because you seem to be having difficulty expressing your ideas in clear English.


 * This is a disambiguation page, even though the word "disambiguation" was deleted from the title some time ago. You may notice the disambiguation template at the bottom.  It may or may not be desirable to have a list of Romans named Manius as a disambiguation page; personally I have my doubts about that.  But the article has existed in that format for a while, and simply deleting most of the contents and replacing them with something completely different, without any discussion on the talk page or a clearly expressed rationale for doing so, seems unjustified.  Until and unless that happens, it's premature to replace a portion of the contents with something completely different.


 * Disambiguation pages typically don't have citations, or have very few, since they're only intended to list other articles with similar names that people might confuse with one another. That doesn't mean that the contents are unverified, or that contents without citations can be safely removed.  It says nothing about "scientific acceptance", which isn't a relevant standard for disambiguation anyway.


 * It's not clear what you mean by "this is not a Latin dictionary page" (and it's certainly not necessary to type in all caps, which implies that you're shouting). Nobody said it was a Latin dictionary page.  But it is about persons with a Latin name, and a short statement that about the name is normal by way of introducing a list of people with that name.  Lewis & Short's dictionary would be a valid source if this page were primarily about the origin, meaning, or significance of the name, rather than about persons who shared it.  It would be an appropriate citation for the article about the name itself, if that page needed a citation.  However, it's a very short and plain statement, without significant discussion (and much of what it contains is in Latin, which is less helpful than paraphrasing what it says in English.  There are better sources available that discuss the name in detail, and they're cited in the article already.


 * Your second comment above seems to indicate some confusion between the concept of praenomina and a particular example of a praenomen. This article is a list of persons with one particular praenomen.  It could also reasonably include a list of other persons named "Manius" who weren't Romans, but they would form a separate section of the contents, rather than replacing them wholesale.  It would not be appropriate to include a definition of "praenomen", much less its etymology, since that's not what this page is about; in theory one might link the word to the relevant article, although technically disambiguation pages are only supposed to link to the articles about the people or things listed, and not every related concept that might be mentioned in the list or its description.


 * On the page about the praenomen Manius, you edited the hatnote in a way that duplicated the links in the lead sentence just below it, and cited to a very old and not particularly relevant source. Hatnotes, like disambiguation pages, serve a very limited purpose.  They send people to one or two related articles that might be confused with the main topic.  they're not body text and shouldn't generally be full of other links; especially not when the words in question are already linked in the body of the article.  Hatnotes aren't assertions of fact or even summaries of fact, so they're not usually cited to anything.  And while it's true that 19th and even 18th century sources can still be relevant in citing to authority, with respect to the basic meaning of a name, a brief lexicon entry from the beginning of the 19th century, in a source that uses archaic spellings in its own title, isn't nearly as useful as a scholarly article about the topic from a century later—one that's already cited in the article.


 * Lastly, while you're not required to have perfect grammar or spelling in order to contribute to Wikipedia, it is rather important that you're able to express your ideas in clear and intelligible English. It's difficult to interpret some of your comments, in which questions are phrased as declarations, subjects and verbs do not agree, necessary punctuation is lacking or incorrectly used, and spelling is highly questionable.  In cases such as this, it's important to be patient and try to understand each other; shouting and repeating one's self does not help.  Nobody's trying to keep you from contributing to Wikipedia, but you may need to spend more time learning basic Wikipedia policies in order to avoid having your edits reverted.  P Aculeius (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL BLOG PAGE!

I do not care about your point of view..

Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be VERIFIED

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fibula-Palestrina.jpg

TRY TO READ IT...

LET ME HELP YOU

translated as:
 * MANIVS ME FECIT NVMERIO

Manius made me for Numerius

GIVE ME YOURS SOURCES NOW! FACTS... PROVES... SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Oetylus (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)