User talk:Xact

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Tapir Terrific 19:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Teacher
I want to personally say "thank you" for your comments at Talk:Teacher. I agree there are major changes that need to be made, and would support any expansion that you are proposing. Make sure your additions are referenced, and almost everything you're putting forth should be fine. • Freechild   'sup?   08:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I went through and wikified a lot of the content you added, and I am sure that you will stir up a lot of debate about the changes you made. The most important thing you can do now is go back and add reliable citations to your additions. Thanks again for your contributions. • Freechild   'sup?   22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dharma fellowship
I have nominated Dharma fellowship, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Dharma fellowship. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Clay Collier (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2009

 * Hi there, Xact - I just reverted your good-faith edit to Equestrian order. Augustus is generally described as the "first Roman emperor", not J Caesar (who was imperator by acclamation several times over, but that's another story). "Principate of Augustus" is preferable in so many ways... Haploidavey (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine & thank you Haploidavey. I find your reversion improving the quality. It feels better to read "under the principality of...", than how it was before my "good-faith edit", even though to argue that it is "generally described" is dubious in my ears; it becomes a matter of convention, in regard of definitions of names and titles. With my good faith I don't really see how Imperator, or Caesar even, is another story in relation to Roman Emperor. On the other side, the notion of "the Principate of Augustus" alludes to the historical convention, or perhaps(?) self-designation, making it more in line with a historigraphical approach whereas the historiographer, as such, is regarded not unrelated to neither signification nor the actual event signified, termed history. --Xact (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sortition
Hi Xact,

I just noticed your note of appreciation on the discussion page of Sortition. As a frequent contributor to that page, I thank you. Also, if you are interested in political activity related to sortition, please leave me a note on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drono (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Futurum
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Maitreya. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have trespassed rules of suchness. I simply found the passage I edited of such an horrendous bad quality, that I couldn't hold my passion. Hoping again that someone would later improve the article to a tolerable level. I confess that it was an idiosyncratic action. Luckily, when tonight reading the Maitreya-article I find that it has improved a lot. --Xact (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

About your "Truth tentative"
Good morning. First, I'm sorry for my bad english. I could not pursue on the english Wikipedia to this day the issue of the defuncts "Five Good Emperors" and "Adoptive emperors" (the traditional way, so defined in 2005 and still in 2006, see "View History": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nerva%E2%80%93Antonine_dynasty&action=history), now the "Nerva–Antonine dynasty", and just now I read your comment, January 2010, called "Truth tentative" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nerva%E2%80%93Antonine_dynasty). I delighted it, and especially your sentence: "I may admit a sympathy for information that breaks with the conformity of historiography pertaining to the alledged conquerors of truth, history". I think you'll find the answer, or the cause, of this concrete break, of this "search for historical truth", in my long article «La dinastía Ulpio-Aelia (96-192 d. C.): ni tan 'Buenos', ni tan 'Adoptivos' ni tan 'Antoninos'», in Gerión 21.1, 2003, pp. 263-305 (http://revistas.ucm.es/ghi/02130181/articulos/GERI0303120305A.PDF), unfortunatedly for me in spanish, on a thesis I've been advocating for years (in full since 1998), that there was no "Antonine dynasty" in the 2nd. century, nor actual adoptions, but a true dynasty united by (spanish, baetican) family ties more or less visible. I think that "the Antonines" is a modern historiographic constructum, created in the XVIII and XIXth centuries by french, german and english historians. My definition and arguments appear since some years in the Wikipedia in Spanish: "Dinastía Ulpio-Aelia", http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinast%C3%ADa_Ulpio-Aelia (although also with some risk, I see...).

What happens is that various authors (usually not quoting me) has been attracted of, or have accepted, my points of view (48 roman texts are too..., see art. cit., p. 322-327), but they try to maintain in it some "tradition". Hence the present phase of the English Wikipedia, where they are, separated but living together, Nerva and still some "Antonines", through now only four. Of course, Nerva had no idea to be starting a dynasty, this was a matter of Trajan and Hadrian, and lasted until Commodus (finally also an Aelius: see art.cit., Abstract, p. 305, and p. 314 ff.).

Anyway, I hope that someday my work will be recognized, also abroad, but for now I'm interested in opinion like your's, that value "the breaks with the conformity of Historiography." This is also the usual object of my work (updated until 2003). Cordially, --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment Alicia Canto. I hope you'll break some walls with your work; especially regarding the convention of marking the Nerva-Antonian succession(?) a dynasty, when it may seem too explicitly signify a policy that refuses such transfer of power along lineages of blood, family and tribe, presumably agnatic, thus patriarchist. Pointing at the misnomer 'dynasty', how do you prefer to term the succession? --Xact (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

- I sincerely apologize for not being able to answer you until now, I have a family problem that concerns me a long time in recent months. Maybe I have not explained well the things. Actually I do defend that it was a true dynasty throughout all the IInd century, not a "5 good emperors", or a simple "5 adoptive emperors" without more intimate relationships. This Hispano-Baetic (with a little "narbonesian touch") dynasty AD 98-192 would be legitimized through real family ties, through the women/empresses: Plotina, Sabina and the two Faustinae, until Commodus, included (before he was habitually dismissed from "the good" and from "the adoptive" emperors). I even proposed (in 2003) a name for it: "Ulpio-Aelian Dynasty". You can read it in the scientific article already cited (english abstract) and in the spanish Wikiarticle Dinastía Ulpio-Aelia (the footnote 1 for more bibliography since at least 1998).

Viewing now some changes on the English Wikipedia, abandoning the traditional "Antonine dynasty" and the "Good Emperors", I do believe that half of "the wall" has already fallen (although without saying who is more than 10 years pushing it...;-)) I say the half the wall because, as can be seen, now the 7 (not 5) emperors appear broken into two lists, "Nerva-Trajan dynasty" (3) and "Antonine dynasty" (4). That has no historical basis, because we know that Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius passed through adoption on the Hadrian's gens Aelia... Anyway, maybe in one or two years more it will be recognized "the truth". Best wishes, --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette
Please put new comments at the bottom of the conversation to maintain chronological order. You haven't been doing this on Talk:Muhammad. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

 * In spite of my history of reverting many of your edits (as I recall, anyway), I must say "thank you" for the barnstar. Quite unexpected. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not having a fixed ideology in regard of my editing, but I'm quite experimental, and fascinated by the dynamic of editing processes. I tend to be in favour of the Ibsenian word saying that the one standing alone is the stronger part. It affects my way of applying the Neutral Point Of View. To be reverted is not something I necessarily deem purely negatively.

User Page
Hi, I came across your page in my travels and noticed you could use a little help with your English to express your ideas a little more clearly. I fixed up the spelling mistakes and some punctuation. There are still a number of grammatical errors, and it could definitely be broken up into paragraphs, but I didn't feel like rewriting the entire page. You're welcome to change it back if you don't appreciate my alterations. KettleCooker (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

British Israelism
Hello Xact,

I see that you have made some comments in relation to the above article, comments which I think are relevant to the situation at hand, so I am contacting you to request any input you may be able to contribute. The situation at hand is that I made what I felt were some basic edits, and they were repeatedly deleted by a contributor, even after I made an adjustment.

I am basically new to this scenario, so I hadn't been aware of the Talk page, etc. At any rate, I have been reading the talk page, and the content of my edit had already been largely addressed by other contributors, including yourself.

So, since I am tackling the deplorable state of the article in question and intend to do a significant edit, I would like to try and build a little consensus, and the more the merrier in the that process!

I would appreciate it if you could take the time to read through the recent entries on the Talk page and participate in the course of events leading to as substantial an edit as possible.

Thanks.Ubikwit (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

!
You have to add references to the Rooster or it will be removed in no time, Xact. This not like the Norwegian Wiki... I am only telling you because it happens rather often... Won't remove it - but someone will. Add references, quick. Hafspajen (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calyce (mythology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endymion. 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) 09:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman religion. 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) 11:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wedel (family), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stormarn. 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) 10:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vaasara
Hello Xact,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Vaasara for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Vaasara for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vaasara is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vaasara until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Algorithm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algorismus ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Algorithm check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Algorithm?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) 09:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eymundar þáttr hrings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nor ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Eymundar_%C3%BE%C3%A1ttr_hrings check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Eymundar_%C3%BE%C3%A1ttr_hrings?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angul (king), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dana ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Angul_%28king%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Angul_%28king%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kievan Rus', you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enea ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Kievan_Rus%27 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Kievan_Rus%27?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vendel Period, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mage. 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) 06:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nór, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gymir.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent additions
I have seen you add some interesting information to Wikipedia recently. Unfortunately, unless you back them up per WP:RS and avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, I am afraid I will be forced to remove them.--Berig (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Swedes (Germanic tribe), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Berig (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have to raise the same issue as Berig here, your recent edit to the same article was also not supported by a source, please read the links on citations above. TylerBurden (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Priesthood in the Catholic Church, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Church and Orthodox Catholic Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)