User talk:Nicknack009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Archives and sub-pages

[edit] You don't understand vandalism

Vandalism is putting false content into articles. Manopingo 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong with you? I am not blanking any pages. I am reverting vandalism, by Calgasus! He is putting false information into Wikipedian articles! Manopingo 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No wonder why the British conquered Ireland so easily! At every juncture, there was always a traitor. I hope you don't go down in history as a traitor too! Old IrelandManopingo 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I ashamed you have a map of Ireland on your user Page. I think you could be a traitor, because you are making anti-Gaelic edits. Sorry!Manopingo 23:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There was always a traitor in Irish history, and many Irish people died, I hope you are not the latest!Manopingo 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please - less of the innuendo and personal attacks. Focus on content, not the person - Alison☺ 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicknack009 - I've asked Manopingo to hold off the revert war for a second and explain himself on the talk page. Can we all just step back and let him have his say until we come to some resolution on this? - Alison☺ 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think it'll do any good. As far as I can tell he's had his say pretty extensively, and totally incoherently, over the last few days, and I doubt he'll improve. --Nicknack009 00:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nick here. We've been trying to talk to him for a while now and he's just getting more incoherent. I think he needs to be given a cooling-off block for the 3RR violations while it's investigated whether he's the reincarnation of perma-banned troll Bluegold (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely no question about it, he is Bluegold. He's the only person in the world with any reason to think that Thomas Owen Clancy's American-ness is POV. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that you're both right on this one and that I've wasted my time in this instant on WP:AGF. He's pretty-much out of control right now - Alison☺ 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic myth

I'm not gonna revert you're edits to that template, but I have to take issue with your contention that Goidel Glas and Scota are too minor. They are the central figures of medieval Scottish origin accounts ... for instance in Fordun, Bower, Wyntoun, etc; looking at some of the other figures - i.e. Taliesin - on the template, I find your contention difficult to believe. Am I missing some train of thought? Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just that if we're going to get into individual characters, the infobox is going to become enormous. Can you honestly say that Goidel Glas and Scota are more important in Gaelic mythological tradition than Partholon, Nemed, Nuada, Lugh, the Dagda, Boann, the Morrigan, Cuchulainn, Medb, Fionn, Cormac, Tuathal Teachtmar, Mongan, Niall of the Nine Hostages and Brian Boru, to name just a few off the top of my head? Better to stick to the broad categories, I would have thought. --Nicknack009 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Those guys are kind of covered by other topics (e.g. Cuchulainn with the Ulster Cycle), but yeah, I see your point. Much better to have a link to an article on Scottish origin myth, which doesn't really exist yet. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Or a general Gaelic origin myth, which is the one part of the Book of Invasions material that isn't properly covered yet, although I think that would fall under the Mythological Cycle heading. --Nicknack009 23:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
That article really centres of one stream of the account of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, and gives no attention to different Irish and esp. Scottish versions (in fact you wouldn't even know they existed from that article), for which, ironically, there is lots of material. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not expand the article? I have to admit, I wasn't aware of any significant Scottish invasions material, and I'd be interested to know about it. --Nicknack009 09:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your report to WP:AIV regarding Manopingo (talk • contribs)

I noticed earlier that you reported Manopingo (talk • contribs) to AIV regarding his/her disruptive reverts on Scota. An administrator removed your report because it was not obvious vandalism. I did notice, however, that Manopingo had violated the three revert rule. I moved your report to WP:AN/3RR and gave specific details including the diffs for the reverts by Manopingo. As a result of that report, Manopingo has been blocked for 24 hours and warned against future violations of the three revert rule. If you have any more problems with this user, please feel free to contact me for help. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Milesians

Thanks for recent work on this. I tidied up a little after you'd gone - any problems, just leave a message. There's some info in the first para that ought to have remained, as it comes from the fn.3 source, but it's not that important and I didn't want to unpick your good work. Your userpage is interesting. And I see you've been labelled a traitor! Must be doing something right.--Shtove 14:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph as it stood was hopelessly confused between what the Lebor Gabála actually says, and later interpretation. I didn't know what came from Carey and what didn't, so I thought it best to go back to first principles. If you want to put Carey's interpretations back in as interpretations, please do. Anyway, keep editing and maybe one day you'll get called a traitor too ;-) --Nicknack009 17:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you psychic? I received this on my talk page today [1] . It's not on all fours with your prediction, but close enough. Out of interest it arose from my response [2] to this edit [3] .--Shtove 17:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh heh. Keep up the good work! Incidentally, you may be interested to know that the user who called me a traitor to Ireland is, judging by his user page, not actually Irish himself. --Nicknack009 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Best

He was a winger and scoring nine in 37 is pretty amazing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanteraNegro (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Boadicca

Iterim means iterim... a work in progress... And if the intro was adequte and the article clear, I wouldn't be spending so much time on it. Am I to believe you or three professional historians and the editorial board of the History Channel? Your references are? // FrankB 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My references are those cited in the article. In particular, for the date of the revolt, see Kevin K. Carroll, "The Date of Boudicca's Revolt", Britannia 10, 1979. What's not clear about the intro? It's meant to be a summary, not a duplication of the entire article. The article as it stands is very thouroughly referenced, and you want to overturn that on the basis of watching a TV programme? --Nicknack009 17:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
yet another edit conflict
Just was written as if reader were already familiar with topic... a common pitfall. As these things go, the article was truly (and it's related major links too) in pretty good shape. I've seen much worse here these last few years. Intros are important to introduce both the topic and define the scope of the article. My version can be trimmed back some, as some stuff is repeated, but telling a thumbnail sketch aimed at the 9-14 year old is generally a good target, in my opinion. I usually let things sit for a few days to week before I pee in such again, letting someone else have a crack at my weak points, and then the blended result comes out pretty well. Also, as a firm believer in repetition being the mother of learning, I tend not to worry about minor redundancy, but whether the information is present and unambiguous in a clear context. Not like we have dead tree limitations on space.
Intriguingly, the upcoming rebroadcast synopsis indicates the date of the event covered in the two hour program is per a rising in 62 AD... I've set to record so I can parse the expert commentaries better--I'd tuned in late as it was, so missed the introduction by the pieces' coverage, which like our intros, sets the stage, and frequently reveals or indicates uncertainties.
It's on Comcast 2-4:00 EDST again, if you are able and care to track it. My big motivation was the commented out stuff you can see in the diff... Nero certainly had no time to consider withdrawing during the rebellion (so anachronistic). The experts did mention he briefly considered such after the event horrified by the loss of the ninth legion, but we're talking months later when faced with replacing a legion and other losses. Nor is Dio's 250k force credible by today's knowledge, particularly in light of the 80% forested terrain of the time. Logistic science says that's poppycock--Roman demonization to agrandize themselves... though it may be possible if you count camp followers and children. Hist chan puts the Roman forces a bit larger, iirc, and the 80-100k 'losses' in Londinium were and are simply ludicrous if it was evacuated. I'll let you know. Cheers // FrankB 17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of TV documentaries about Boudica, and they all sensationalise, and treat conjecture as known fact. It doesn't take an "expert" to tell me that Nero briefly considered pulling out - I've read Suetonius, same as they have. --Nicknack009 17:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict 3-- we're on a roll together <g>)

a TV programme... You must be another British contributor with that spelling. <g> I seem to end up collecting a lot of you as friends hereon, with my interests in matters historical. But how does the editorial board of a documentary production company take second place to say a reference in news or magazine coverage. At least the History Channel has experts illuminating the matters, and trys to present the uncertainties or controversies. All in all, they make for a decent way to check our materials. Talk to you later... I'm neither into reversions, nor getting into conflicts over materials, so just keep an open mind. I'm sure having read some written materials, you have a great command of the details, but neither should anyone here figure they've got the whole picture if other data comes to light. ttfn // FrankB 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Also agree per the sensationalistic tendency... just like the print media overall. Which is why I record and test how they say what they say. Weighing one source against another is certainly part of our job as editors... I wasn't being critical, but thinking of that ten year old. later! // FrankB 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, in parting, the matter of the name shouldn't abandon the old materials in libraries... you'll note I went back to the 'new' unfamilar name in the second edit. Again, keeping in mind the target audience. If we were writing for a professional journal or college demographic, we'd be using the wrong vehicle. // FrankB 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm writing for accuracy, and have no intention of talking down to the readership. I didn't like that when I was ten. I have expanded the intro a bit, but we need to leave some details for the full article to fill in. The article is mainly based not on magazines or sensationalist popular literature, but on the Roman sources - Tacitus, Dio, Suetonius, all freely available on the internet if you want to check the article's accuracy - and on scholarly secondary literature, all of which I would rate ahead of a TV documentary, which, even if it's one of the few responsible ones, is a tertiary source based on the same primary and secondary sources. --Nicknack009 18:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/i/c/User_talk%7ENicknack009_592e.html"