User talk:Bill Thayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Archived pages

[edit] Category:Mad Roman emperors

Well, I felt it was a subset of Suicides/murders of Roman emperors, as the 2 often coincided. But true, not always. Neddyseagoon 18:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon

Yes. The cat system doesn't describe fact so much as logic. For example, every single President of the United States to date has been an English-speaker; yet "Presidents of the United States" could never be a subcategory of "English-speakers": it is not a requirement of the job, nor is it in any way intrinsically related. Bill 18:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyranni XXX (+II)

Sorry for being wrong about the "two women" - should have read the lot.

However, leaving a note here because I get a "connection refused" for the Penelope server (LacusCurtius website). Any idea if something is going on/wrong? --Francis Schonken 11:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Something is a bit wrong, apparently parts of the server are down. I'm still getting my e-mail and I can still FTP, but I can't connect to the site. (I don't understand computers.... But my server guy does, and it'll prolly be back up when he wakes up in say 3 or 4 hours.) It is, at any rate, quite temporary. Best, Bill 11:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Alive & kicking again!
Well, in the end I'm starting to doubt whether I was wrong about the two women. I give the full quote of the text at the end of HA, Thirty Pretenders, 31 (which is the end of the Victoria chapter, making the transition to the last two pretenders). I bold the section that makes me think the – otherwise confused & confusing as you indicated – author(s) of the HA counted the women out (deep link to that section):

5This is all that I have deemed worthy of being related concerning the thirty pretenders, all of whom I have gathered into one book, lest the telling of each single detail about each one singly might bring about an aversion that is undeserved and not to be borne by my readers. 6Now I will return to the Emperor Claudius. Concerning him I think I should publish a special book, short though it be, for his manner of life deserves it, and I must say something, besides, about that peerless man, his brother,116 in order that at least a few facts may be told of so righteous and noble a family.
7It was with deliberate purpose that I included the women, namely that I might make a mock of Gallienus, a greater monster than whom the Roman state has never endured; now I will add two pretenders besides, supernumeraries, so to speak, for they lived each at a different period, since one was of the time of Maximinus, the other of the time of Claudius, my purpose being to include in this book the lives of thirty pretenders. 8I ask you, accordingly, you who have received this book now completed, to look on my plan with favour and to consent to add to your volume these two, whom I had purposed to include after Claudius and Aurelian among those who lived between Tacitus and Diocletian, just as I included the elder Valens117 in this present book. 9This error on my part, however, your accurate learning, mindful of history, prevented. 10And so I am grateful that the kindliness of your wisdom has filled out my title. Now no one in the Temple of Peace118 will say that among the pretenders I included women, female pretenders, forsooth, or, rather, pretendresses — for this they are wont to bandy about concerning me with merriment and jests. 11They have now the number complete, gathered into my writings from the secret stores of history. For 12I will add to my work Titus and Censorinus, the former of whom, as I have said, lived under Maximinus and the latter under Claudius, but both were slain by the very soldiers who clothed them with the purple.

Literally he says something like: I'll add two more (Titus and Censorinus), because I don't want to have it said that I counted two women in (in what the author deems to be a serious historic work).
Or did I misapprehend the stately and slightly outdated English of the Loeb translation? (I'm still no native English speaker...).
No, your English is fine. I reread this a few times, as well as the Latin. It's exceedingly hard to say what exactly he did mean. On one hand it's clear — my initial fast reading — that his supernumeraries are T & C; on the other, he certainly does seem to be saying that he's throwing out the women and adding in men to be sure of making 30. The HA is such appalling gibberish.... An intelligent way out — more than the HA deserves — might be to give a nod to the whole situation, stating that the author could only come up with 28, and added two different sets of 2 to make 30, in each case "scraping the bottom of the barrel" in different ways: (1) the first time, women; (2) the second time, people that even he doesn't think should be in there, just in case it were felt that women were unsuitable. This is well past anything I want to spend time on, and anything you'd write along those lines would make as much sense as anything else.
Another question, if you feel like, I updated List of borderline fictional characters today - was wondering what you'd think of the approach on that page? --Francis Schonken 19:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't know about the approach, but extending the list is fun. There are quite a few people who are borderline-fictional, and (larger category) quite a few animals, plants, and natural phenomena as well, like Herodotus' gold-mining ants, the unicorn (an 18c French explorer in Oklahoma saw Indians roasting one over a campfire; see also cryptozoology and Category:Fictional plant species). Already in Antiquity there were people the ancients themselves found borderline — apart from the many thousands of usually rather dull "aetiological" people, including in the Bible, who are just names to justify modern tribe or place nomenclature.
tx for ordering them again chronologically – that's the way I had started the list, someone didn't understand and re-arranged alphabetically, I suppose I thought something along the lines of well past anything I want to spend time on (I mean, likeliness to kick of stupid revert-warring or so). But sure, such list is much better in chronological order. --Francis Schonken 22:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You may be amused by my own Johann Nepomuk Offdewallensis and Mishmash of Alexandria, which have been taken to be real by some people online! although my most "successful" such item by far, embarrasingly and distractingly so, is the two origins of the silly pseudo-Latin phrase "Illegitimi Non Carborundum" (1 • 2). Bill 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Fun indeed! But you know what... I started the borderline fictional characters list out of practical necessity; at the time I was working at the wikipedia:categorisation of people guideline. Some wikipedians contended it was impossible to make categories about topics that had definition issues (like criminals and the like). Then I said something like: but there's absolutely no topic that doesn't have "demarcation" issues. Before I knew I was having fun describing the unexpectedly broad borderzone surrounding something obvious as "people" vs. "anything else"... So, don't just call "fun" which is very serious business (but, yeah, it is at least "interesting" fun) --Francis Schonken 22:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you know about the Boreal Master? Septentrionalis 16:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monumentum Ancyranum

Thanks for putting this on the web. I'm using it at Talk:Perpetual peace to answer a monomaniac who is choosing to dfeny that conquerors have promise peace through conquest; for more of his vision of history, see Never at War. Septentrionalis 16:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominion of British West Florida

Thanks for correcting the article link. Bo 16:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting short translation

I'm working on translating a biography from Italian to English, in order to write a featured article. If possible, can you please translate just this paragraph:

Della, infanzia e prima sua giovinezza assai poco ne sappiamo, giacchè nè egli, nè chi di lui scrisse non si curarono dirne o ricercarne: suoi genitori furono Paolo e Luisa (1), assai presto mancatigli: che nascesse nel 1534 è troppo grave abbaglio del Buratti, il quale, fornito di scarsissime notizie, volle scriverne un elogio (2), ma poichè nulla avvi di certo, io sono propenso a credere ch'egli venisse alla luce circa il 1523 o poco più lardi, giacchè da lui stesso impariamo come nella infanzia fosse stalo travagliato da quella pestilenza, che egli, scrivendo nel 1563, dice essere stata l'ultima (1), e dev'essere quella fierissima dell'anno 1527 seppur non fu quella del seguente o di tre anni dopo.

Thanks for your help :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-14 04:42

Of his childhood and his first youth we know rather little, since neither he nor anyone who writes about him cared to recount or research it: his parents were Paolo and Luisa (1), who very quickly left him an orphan; that he was born in 1534 is a serious blunder by Buratti, who, possessed of very slight information, wished to write a panegyric of him (2); but since there is nothing certain, I am inclined to think that he saw the light of day around 1523 or not much later, since from his own lips we learn how in infancy he was attacked by the same pestilence that he, writing in 1563, states was the last one (1), and it must be the very severe one of the year 1527 unless maybe it was that of the following year or of three years later. Bill 12:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Gregorio al Celio

Hi! How are you? Ho appena completato l'articolo su San Gregorio Magno, la chiesa sul Celio. ti va di dare un'occhiata per corregere eventuali errori? Sempre su Roma, ho scritto l'articolo per Agostino Chigi, relativo a Villa Farnesina... Ciao! Attilios

Bé, come sempre, molto occupato e in fretta! Gli errori sono come sempre piccolini. Mi avrà rammentato di scrivere mie paginette sugli oratori — nel frattempo, il mio diario potrà aver qualche interesse. Saluti, Bill 12:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terracina

If you've time, give glance to the new Terracina article. The older one was truly stupid, as many new monuments were discovered after the This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain. editions. I'm growing increasingly dubious the presence of such 1911 articles in WP, as they : 1) are written in very POV-ish English; 2) sono pieni di errori, sia tipografici sia di interpretazione. Grazie per la revisione di San Gregorio al Celio. Ciaoooo! Attilios, today.

Very nice. Plus I learned a word of Italian, impaludazione — che, certo, avrei capito, ma mai usato da sé. There is no good corresponding word in English, unfortunately, altho one does see marshification, which I will not use. The name of the god in English is Jupiter, although in the 17-18c one frequently sees Jove. Beware the English possessive, which never fails to trip up even the best-Englished foreigners.... "The faithful", and in general, adjectives used as nouns, do not take an -s in the plural. References to specific passages of Pliny or other ancient authors: the most useful thing is surely to make the link take you to the passage itself online, rather than the Wikipedia article on the author.
Gli errori tipografici nelle trascrizioni della EB 1911 sono pressoché sempre dovuti alla scannerizazzione fatta da Wikipedani che non guardano, non capiscono, o se ne fregano.... Bill 13:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Grazie. Ora controllo la versione corretta. Per quanto riguarda la 1911 EB, io parlavo di veri errori nell'articolo originale. In quello di Gaeta, per esempio, ce n'erano parecchi, anche se ora non me li ricordo. Errori dovuti secondo me: 1) a una visione molto "British" della cultura: tipo i nomi scritti con grafie arcaiche oppure mai sentite in Italiano. 2) ovviamente al tempo trascorso dal 1911 (vedi il Capitolium di Terracina scoperto dopo il 1943). Gli articoli sui pittori, per fare un esempio, oggigiorno sono illeggibili e pieni di pregiudizi (quello di Verrocchio, ad esempio, andrebbe modernizzato, anche perché sull'Encyclopaedia Britannica di oggi - che ho in casa - è nettamente migliore di quello di WP: è assurdo che su WP ci sia un articolo di 10 pagine su Flash, e così poco su Verrocchio). Grazie per i consigli sull'inglese. Alla prossima!!! Attilios

[edit] Fondi and Siege of Gaeta

Hey! Today I had time and worked much. Improved Fondi and wrote from scratch Siege of Gaeta. As usual, I leave them to your pity to correct a bit my English. Ciaoooo!! Attilios.

Ciao Bill! Ho scovato un errore notevole della 1911, per la quale Ausones e Aurunci erano la stessa tribù. Se hai tempo dai un'occhiata per correzioni a quei due articoli: negli ultimi giorni ho scritto anche Asti, Sarzana, Ezzelino III da Romano, Ezzelino da Romano. Altra perla dalla 1911: "the Vandals under Alaric (Vicenza). Grazie!!!! User:Attilios

[edit] New account

Hello - This account was created a few minutes ago. Is it related to yours? --HappyCamper 00:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Bill 02:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bevan's "The House of Ptolemy"

Hi there. I have recently discovered your website that has Bevan's work "The House of Ptolemy" online. I have started reading it and have found it absolutely fascinating. Thanks for providing this incredible online resource (and all the other online texts). I have been considering using this resource to improve some of the Wikipedia articles on the Ptolemaic dynasty, but wanted to check how reliable a resource it is nearly 80 years later. ie. How much of what Bevan writes has been overtaken by later historical research, and how much is still valid?

This interest started when I expanded the Ptolemy (disambiguation) page. I have tried not to get confused by all the Ptolemies, but would appreciate any feedback on whether I have missed any Ptolemies, or misrepresented them. Thanks for any advice you can offer. Carcharoth 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and advice. Much appreciated. Would you be able to give any examples of the "mere detail" that modern scholarship departs from Bevan on? Just so I have some idea what to look out for? Carcharoth 01:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Not offhand, but as you roam around Bennett's site, he'll reference Bevan (linking back to me), then comment on where Bevan is, according to him, outdated, etc. Bill 02:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That's great. Thanks. BTW, I read your evolving views on Wikipedia, and a lot of what you said chimes with the way I feel as well. I loved the idea of a strike and articles "liquefying to sludge". Indeed, I fear that is the ultimate fate of something like this - a kind of entropy as order gives way and returns to the primeval chaos that it arose from... Oops. Been reading too much Greek mythology!
The hope is, of course, that frozen snapshots of Wikipedia are obtained at the right moment. I also agree with your comments about registration and traceability. About your comment on how writing by committee flattens the authorial tone, I think that can sometimes be a good thing. I think the solution here would be to have the Wikipedia articles have that "flat" voice, and then allow people to generate forks of the articles that inject individual narrative voices. It is possible to have articles saying exactly the same thing, but written in totally different styles. Bevan's style in 'The House of Ptolemy' is a good example, as are some of the 1911 Britannica articles. Different from the style of articles seen today, but compelling in their own ways, and no less valid. Carcharoth 02:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ptolemy - part II

Hi Bill. Many thanks for the pointer to Bennett's Ptolemy page and the advice to ask him about things. I do have a more general question that I wondered if I could ask you. I am currently trying to find sources that give the etymology of the Greek Ptolemaios, and, more ambitiously, trying to track the variation and evolution of the name over the next 2000 years! For what I have compiled so far, see the relevant section in Ptolemy (disambiguation) or Ptolemy (name) - one will move to the other when I find the time to make sure I am carrying out the move correctly. Would you have any advice on the best way to tackle this etymology research? So far I have the Oxford Classical Dictionary and the rather large Paully-Wissowa encyclopedia series to find. Carcharoth 00:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bevan [1] states that Ptolemaios is derived from the Macedonian Greek equivalent of polemos. What his sources are, I have no idea. The OCD in its various articles says nothing about the etymology. Bill 18:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Augustus

Thanks for your appreciation, Bill, I'm glad that you at least tried defending the facts and didn't simply assume that the troll was a vandal looking for trouble. Cheers. – CrazyInSane 14:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todi

Added some material to Todi, after I visited that extrardinarily beautiful city last Sunday. I like it. It resembles something ready for a featured article... after some copyedit. I have some pictures to be added, especially of the palaces. Let me know, and... CIAO!! Attilios 14:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your copyedit. See you soon. Attilios 10:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santa Maria della Vittoria

Do you have a picture of this church to add? Attilios (P.S.: I have noticed that the Todi's Nicchioni picture is from yours. Thanks!)

No. I cannot contribute photos to Wikipedia. Jim Wales made it clear in a memo about six months ago that no images would be accepted if they did not have a blanket license, and that pictures already used would be pulled if they had been licensed under anything less than a complete blanket license, which, despite all the cant about copyleft etc., is the equivalent of releasing it to the public domain. Now I am perfectly willing to allow the use of my pictures on a No-Commercial basis (the so‑called cc-by-nd-nc license), and Wikipedia used to support this, but they pulled that option. I had placed one photo in Wikipedia myself, but withdrew it after reading that memo. You can still see it at it:Trevi (Umbria), where for some reason they've been slower to implement it, and I in turn haven't bothered to pull it.
So no, that picture of the Nicchioni in the article Todi is not mine; and tsk-tsk — mine are better. Cars are a blight. Bill 13:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santa Maria della Pace

I just added Santa Maria della Pace. Let me know if my architectural English is improving. I hope! Goodbye. User:Attilios

[edit] Largo di Torre Argentina

Una impressionante collezione di "perle" dall'articolo su Largo Torre Argentina.

  • Torre Papito invece che Torre del Papitto.
  • Casa del Bucardo invece che Burcardo
  • Torre Argentoratina invece che Torre Argentina

Tralasciamo poi lo stile...

Non riesco proprio a spiegarmi come mai gli Anglosassoni commettono tutti questi stupidi errori quando si tratta di roba italiana. Io quando leggo qualcosa di inglese mica poi lo scrivo come pare a me, o no? Hai mai trovato su libri italiani "Palazzo di Westmister", "Wascinton" o "Wessecs". Boh?

Ciao!! Attilios

[edit] From Sansepolcro

Dear Bill, finally I can find some time to write to your english page. I'm Lorenzo, the Architect from Sansepolcro, who asked for an opinion about the ancient Biturgia of Ptolomy. Excuse my Late reply, but I've got some working trouble, and I also wanted to talk with GRAS (Gruppo Ricerche Archeologiche Sansepolcro) members.

So, now i think I've some more time. First of all, my e.mail:

loribop@aruba.it

as you may remember my e-mail towards you were refused all time.. i don't know ho to do. Meanwhile you have mine.

The Gras, doesn't have one yet, but there is a new. This winter was founded an association to work with the Gras. It is the CESQ (Centro Studi del Quaternario). And the Cesq has a newsletter, and if you wish I can make your name and subscrive you to it. It's obviously free.

Other thing. I talked with Gras members and president (Giampiero Laurenzi) about our discusison about Biturgia. He was very happy, and pleased me to thanks you for all the study and also for the discussion. Also, he said, if you came in Italy, near here, please let us know because all the GRAS would be pleased to have a visit from you!

So, thanks again, and let me know if you'd like to receive news from CESQ. bye, Lorenzo Daveri --81.75.149.41 09:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Help

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Rome was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.
Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 01:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

[edit] USMAPS help

Thanks for your help in the USMAPs article; it needed it. :) My brother just graduated there 2 weeks ago, and I plan to scan in his diploma for a better version of the West Point Prep crest. If you have any ideas please add, there wasn't very much that I could find.

Zidel333 04:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. You just encouraged me to clean it up a bit more. (I attended USMAPS in 1968‑69 and went on to the Air Force Academy; my info can be out of date, so I've been careful!) The most important thing that needed to be added, that wasn't stated anywhere, was that CCs are in the army.... Best, Bill 10:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norcia

Hy Bill!

Let me in Italian.

La affermazione: "...to the point that Norcia has given its name to such products: in Italian, norcineria." non e' esatta dal punto di vista storico-concettuale.

Con "Norcineria" in italiano non si intende tutto cio' che ha a che vedere con il maiale, quanto il particolare tipo di negozio ( macelleria suina) dove sono venduti solo prodotti ricavati dalla carne di maiale.

Il fatto che questo genere di macellerie vengano definite in molte citta' della Italia centrale e meridionale "norcinerie" non e' dovuto al fatto che Norcia sia famosa per la lavorazione della carne di maiale quanto perche', originariamente, esse erano gestite da norcini, ovvero persone originarie della citta' di Norcia, che abbandonarono la propria citta' per impiantare attivita' commerciali altrove.

E' la parola "Salumi" che in italiano intende generalmente tutto cio' che ha a che vedere con la carne di maiale stagionata, mentre non esiste un termine alternativo a maiale per quanto riguarda la carne fresca.

Credo che la affermazione dovrebbe essere corretta.

Per confronto, controlla il seguente vocabolario italiano on-line alla voce "norcineria":

http://www.sapere.it/gr/DictionarySearchServlet

Con simpatia

Leoperutz 09:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Grazie per le precisazioni. La cosa è un po' sottile per Wikipedia, ma si non lo hai fatto già, provvederò alla correzione nell'articolo. Conoscevo certo salumi ecc. Chiedo scusa per la risposta tardiva, infatti sto tornando da un viaggio di tre settimane senza collegamento ad Internet, in un posto degli Stati Uniti più sperduto ancora di Norcia, e vengo di vedere mia paginetta Wikipedia soltanto stamane. Bill 10:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Churches of Rome Wiki

Hi Bill, good to see you on Wikipedia. Just wanted to let you know I'm closing down my Churches of Rome site soon, which is actually good news – I'm releasing it all under GFDL, adapting it and moving it to the Churches of Rome Wiki at Wikia. Cnyborg 00:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dreadful news; your site has taken the first small step toward becoming worthless in a few years. I'm very sad to hear this, although I can understand that we all move on — but what's the matter with parking the site in its final form with a university, or the diocese? Bill 10:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The site has never reached a final form; there is simply too much work. I've found that as it was, the site was becoming more and more worthless, since updates were far too infrequent. With a hopefully somewhat larger community around it, there is a chance that it can become more up-to-date and grow. The site as it is has been saved, and will be available should anyone wish to have it parked somewhere. Continuing to use the diocesan server was not an option anymore, for several reasons which I won't go into in public. I've been approached by some universities, but their offers have not been acceptable (although one of them was quite generous in a pecunariy sense; the problem has been the rights to the content). As I see it, the alternative to this move was to let the site linger for a few more years and then take it down altogether. Cnyborg 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link on Natural History (Pliny)

Hi there. I recently removed a link from Natural History (Pliny) and which you quickly re-instated. When I click the link, I get this message, "Forbidden You don't have permission to access /holland/index.html on this server."

You appear to be based at the University of Chicago, so you presumably have permission to access all their archived material, but the rest of the world doesn't. Perhaps you talk to someone at the university about loosening the restrictions on their website? I can't imagine the bandwidth used by folks researching Pliny is all that great.

Anyway, I'm going to cut out the link again, but feel free to reinstate (again!) if the site becomes open to the general public. (ps - I can access your personal pages (including the latin version of Pliny) just fine. Matt Deres 19:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That site is public access, and is not "archived material". In a very small number of cases (surely less than 5%, but call it that for convenience), the site owner does restrict access to it, mostly from certain referring pages he feels are obnoxious, such asreferrals from Google Images, servers that are blacklisted by SpamCop, etc. My own Internet access, by the way, is not via the University of Chicago — I'm at home, and not proxying them — and I have no difficulty accessing the site. In effect, you're proposing to block 95% of people from that useful site because you seem to be one of the 5% that isn't getting thru. Suit yourself, though; it's just one of the umpteen reasons Wikipedia is not the resource it could be. Bill 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Please lower the melodrama a notch or two, will you? I clicked the link you left on the wikipedia page and got blocked. If Wikipedia is part of your 5% example that's blocked, then the rest is pretty academic, don't you think? Matt Deres 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
And that too is part of the problem with Wikipedia. I was courteous — although pointing out that you had made unwarranted assumptions: a) that the site was some "archived" item not open to the public, and b) on how I access the Web — and get slapped in the face with ad hominem remarks. Quality of discourse on Wikipedia, as noted on my profile page, sorely lacking. As to the matter at hand, again, you made an assumption or failed to understand: the referral by Wikipedia is not the problem (I accessed the page from the Wikipedia link, as have others). It is very likely something to do with your server. Obviously if links from Wikipedia were blocked, the link wouldn't be there in the first place, now would it? To dot my I's, you should not assume people are fools. (Wikipedia by the way not the be-all and end-all of websites, and it would hardly be a big deal if it were blocked.) Bill 08:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, we seem to be off on the wrong foot here. Let me start by saying that I did not mean to insult you personally, though I can see how you could interpret my remarks that way. I am sorry. My melodrama comment was in reference to you implying that my attempts to correct a page were part of what's wrong with Wikipedia and claiming that I was acting to the detriment of 95% of the population. I often make mistakes, but I get a little testy when people assume a misunderstanding on my part was somehow malicious. Come on, I cut a link that I saw to be dead and explained my reasons (albeit clumsily); do I sound like someone out to shaft everyone of a perfectly good link? I probably wouldn't have opened this dialogue or re-cut the link if I hadn't seen that your personal page was on the same server as the "blocked" site - honest! I've done it before where I forget that I'm on a non-public space by virtue of the cookies that make things seem seamless.
I don't know why I'm blocked from viewing the link, but you yourself were the one that said it might be based on the site referral. Since that site is Wikipedia, it is a big deal - if Wikipedia readers can't access it, why have the link on Wikipedia? For all I knew, Wikipedia was added to the blocked list after you had added it initially - there'd be no reason to block it until it was there, right? Since site referral doesn't seem to be the culprit anyway, the point is moot, I would just like to make it clear that I only based my statement on what you had suggested.
You say that you can see the site just fine from home; that's good enough for me to accept that the link is valid and I won't cut it again. I'm willing to accept your word on the subject; will you accept mine that I was only trying to correct what I saw as a mistake? Matt Deres 10:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (ps - You seem to take umbrage at my use of the word 'archive'; I'm not sure why you find it offensive, but I am only using it the sense that 'x' is archived there, just as a book is archived in a library.) Peace?
I'm not blocked from viewing the link. --Wetman 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Peace, yes, thanks. Believe it or not, I just read you today Matt: that was enough to keep me off Wikipedia for 2 weeks; my nerves are very poor. (As to the matter at hand, I'm still puzzled why you, and presumably some others not fitting the cases I suggested, are blocked from the site. I'll poke around with my server and see if I can solve it. Bill 14:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Caratacus

Bill - help me! User:WikiRat1 is back and vandalising Caratacus with his British Israelite nonsense again, and I'm fed up being the only one standing up to him. I've posted scans of the relevant passages of Dio both from Carey and Boissevain and linked to the Foster translation at Project Gutenberg, but he keeps blithely insisting that Dio says Caratacus was a Christian. --Nicknack009 17:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] External links & linkspam

Dear Bill,

Thanks for the message on my talk page. Firstly, let me say that it is a pleasure to have a conversation with someone who makes clear points, in a collaborative and open manner, and who avoids any kind of "I'm right, you're wrong, any one who disagrees with me is an idiot" dialogue.

So, to the matter in hand. I assure you that I have visited every site before deleting it, which has been a laborious and time-consuming process. Yes, I know, I really should get a life. I cannot exclude the possibility that in this I have accidentally deleted an occasional site that probably is correctly included, and one that you mention certainly sounds like it might be among them. However, I am sure (and have just revisted the Umbria page to confirm) that this is not the case generally. Most of the links that you have put back do indeed fall into the category of commercial and/or vanity publishing. I would encourage you to visit them and see for yourself.

I will not revert the changes pending further conversations which, given your earlier contribution to the debate, I am sure will lead to a consensus.

Right, that's enough amiability and reasonableness; I'm right, you're wrong, yah boo.

--Bcnviajero 12:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donna Marina Torlonia

FYI The article heading is incorrect. If I am not mistaken (I do not have a copy of Almanach de Gotha at hand), by the rules of Italian nobility, Marina Torlonia was not a titular princess, though her father was a prince. She was, instead, "Donna," not Princess, though the latter title is often how she was referred to in newspapers, et cetera, during her lifetime, usually incorrectly. Mowens35 13:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't care less, and don't know anything about royalty. My intervention, as you will see from the article history, was limited to getting the name right. "Cessi" means "public bathroom" and was wrong; "Cesi" is a place I've been to. Bill 13:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Natives of Baden-Württemberg

Hi Bill,

you created this page. As there is a cat about natives of Baden-Württemberg, I wondered if there is a special reason for this one?--Tresckow 03:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jona Lendering

Your article Jona Lendering has appeared in the Dead End Pages list because it is not wikified. Please consult the Wikipedia Guide to Layout for more information on how to write a good, wikified article. I would encourage you to revisit your submissions and {{wikify}} them. Thanks and happy editing! James084 15:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned invitation

Hello, from your edits it looks like you're interested in Ancient Greece and/ or Ancient Rome. Would you like to join WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome?

No. Bill 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiking in Umbria

Bill (let's give up with formalism): first, thanks for the englishing. I hope we can shred the disputed section as soon as possible. I'm glad that you are coming to Umbria in autumn. Maybe we can arrange for a meeting somewhere. Soon by mail. --Cantalamessa 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/l/User_talk%7EBill_Thayer_d87e.html"