User talk:Tommcnabb
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Syagrius and Trier
Hi, "Emettlach," you are too fierce! Wikipedia should just turn itself into Britannica and forget the pretense that anybody can contribute. You wrote a long paragraph on this user talk page that has nothing to do with anthing I meant to say. I was talking in general about Roman Administration of the Western Empire, in the below quoted sentence, not specifically about the major topic, which is Syagrius I think -- which page is this posting [three years ago?] of mine on?
Now, to go into detail, your information is great!
Yeah, I think my contribution about Justinian being 500's because sixth century means 500's was great. It points out yeah we heard about Justinian but barely and the discussion always makes it sound like he is so far removed in time and relevance and so on from the presented history story "The Fall of Rome."
I think I say the same as you do with this prhase you quoted from my contribution, "deep within Germany," by which I clearly separate Trier from the northern half of Roman Gaul. Germany, Gaul, two different places. Deep within emphasises. And so, you and I agreed from the start but you were too eager to be a standard angry Wik editor that you made up a disagreement between my contribution and your facts just in order to write this angry blog stipulating that ordinary people can't contribute to Wikipedia without being told they are a jerk strongly by some wik expert or other.
And: Nevertheless, Trier, within its walls at least, did remain governed by a former Roman official approaching or perhaps into the sixth century.
Another example is Trebizond, which is not to say I am saying Syagrius was "A King of the Romans" over Trebizond which you would rush to point out would be impossible because Trebizond continued on approaching the start of the sixteenth century under Roman rule [common knowledge, no source required] where [woops I forgot my source PBS? Economist? National Geographic?] their descendants live today having converted to be Muslims and thus having not been transported to Greece after WWI.
Furthermore, I see the whole point in your complaint below. "Re-writing history." Reliable sources would have been a good technical complaint as citaition is a standard for wikipedia. My source I am pretty sure is an old book so no legal problem. But not good wikipedia or otherwise practice. BUT, this is not the complaint, its "re-writing history" which is ridiculous since you found a complaint to make where you and my writing actually agree not disagree, seeming to indicate you just didn't like the whole topic and don't approve of anything but the simplified Romulus Augusulus children't history and pop media we suffer under. I hope, however, this is not the case, nor that wikipedia editors such as you write like are arrogant, just energetic, and that you just didn't read carefully my contribution in your enthusiasm to say your own detailed history you wanted to add to my talk page! Lets assume that, and so thanks! --T. Mc. 20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC) oh, good thing I can read french or think I can. Anyway the information you gave already in this talk page of mine sounds great. Maybe the confusion is about Gaul, it sounds from your writing below. I didn't now Gaul consisted of a larger area. And even now where I am reading Tacitus, a much earlier period, Gaul is this side of the Rhine and Germany that side. I didn't know, nor knew now until I read your comment that Trier was once part of Roman "Gaulia." So maybe this was our confusion. I thought Gaul was what is now France and what was Gaul, I now read, in Tacitus's description of the early empire under Vespasian, and Germany was Germany and Roman Germany, etc. So, we both agree, but maybe you had some ideas in mind that led you to think I might have been confused.
And certainly I didn't repeatedly re-post over and over. And no discussion if I did re-post was made explaining the error of my post. So hey! --T. Mc. 21:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Tom, you wrote: "The entire northern half of Roman Gaul, from Tours north, remained under Roman Administration for ten years after the deposure of Augustulus, until 486. After this, perhaps another ten years or more, approaching the start of the sixth century, deep within Germany actually only just east of what is now Luxumborg(1), the Roman people of Trier still remained autonomous". Well, there was the empire of Syagrius until 486. But your conclusion is wrong, because your detail information is wrong. Your cardinal error is to believe, Trier was part of Syagrius roman kingdom. In fact, Trier was never part of this last roman remain in middle europe. Syagrius territorry lied exclusively on what today is called France (concentrated around the regions Ile de France and Normandie). The eastern border of Syagrius territory ended roundabout at the valleys of the river Maas (or Meuse in french) and Marne more in the south and Somme in the north, all this is miles west from Trier. During the time Syagrius was defeated, Trier already belonged to the frankish kingdom, called Francia in latin speaking sources, it did no longer belong to Gallia. There are dozens of good maps and books about it, e.g. here http://perso.wanadoo.fr/palladia/finempireoccident.htm (Look at the brown tainted map: The black territory is the frankish kingdom with the city Tournai shown. Tournai is today at the belgian-french border and is situated approx. 130 Kilometers more westwards than Trier). An evidence that trier not belonged to Syagrius kingdom is, that the newly conquered territory in 486 was called "Neustria" (new land) by the new frankish rulers. But Trier never belonged to Neustria, but always to "Austrien" or "Austrasia" (eastern land). The same with today french city of Metz and Reims. So, I don`t know why you insist on your error. You can`t rewrite history without having reliable sources. And thanks for the information, that 6th century refers not to 600's but 500's. Revolutionary! Emettlach 09:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Legal harassment
A tag has been placed on Legal harassment, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 18:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
