User talk:86.85.44.73

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Diolkos

Hello. In case, you require any assistance, you are most welcome. --Bhadani 09:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Roman roads in Britain. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Joseph Sanderson 21:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

JOSEPH: I am not trying to vandalise anything. I wrote the Overview and was trying to add distances to the table of roads. Unfortunately, I do not know my way around Wikipedia. How do I retrieve my revised table? ANDREAS

Sorry. If you go back to the history page, click the version you want, then click edit, it reverts it to that version. It just looked like all those reverts were part of an edit war.

Welcome!

Hello, 86.85.44.73, 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 (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Joseph Sanderson 13:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Roman Roads

Hi, thank you for your improvements to Roman roads in Britain. You may have noticed my previous attempts to improve it and organise it.

I have been reorganising Category:Ancient roads and tracks, and I have noticed that the Category:Roman roads structure is poorly implemented. Any article which appears in a sub-category should not appear in higher categories. Which means that most of the roman roads listed there should really be in one of the sub-categories.

I intend to reorganise them, and am informing you in advance to see if you have any objections. Bards 12:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. My intentions are here - Category talk:Roman roads Bards 13:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Hey, Bards: your proposed reorganisation of the chaotic Category:Roman roads seems admirable. As for Roman roads in Britain, I applaud your input. As you have doubtless seen, my latest version has improved the structure and expanded the content even further, as well as eradicating irrelevant links. Keep up the good work! ANDREAS 27/1/07

Hi Andreas, thanks. I will ;) I will leave the Roman roads article entirely in your capable hands. Re. your removing of links - bear in mind that the article may be read by mediocre high-school students, who may not fully understand what we think of as common terms. This is the reason I added so many links, although you are no doubt right to take a few of them out. Bards 06:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Bards: Ooops! Sorry, I didn't realise it was you that added the links- I thought it was someone else. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not a desirable principle that there should only be links to articles that relate directly to the content? I appreciate the point about high-school students, but I find it hard to believe they do not know what the "18th century" or "freight wagons" mean- or have New Labour's education reforms reduced them to total ignorance? Besides, if they are mystified by a term, they have the option of searching for it. Best wishes. ANDREAS 12.20 27/1/07

Indeed, I think the Tories had a go at them first, then New Labour got at them aswell. And now they are all idiots ;D I will leave it up to you, as I'm not an expert myself. Bards 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Roman Legions

Hello 86.85.44.73. Thank you for your remarks. But I must disagree!

  1. Hispania Tarraconensis included Gallaecia, that comprised modern Galicia (Spain) and Northern Portugal. On the other hand Lusitania, even if it included most of [[Portugal] south of the Douro river, also included modern Extremadura and parts of Salamanca. So I believe the reference to Hispania Tarraconensis should also point out Northern Portugal.
  2. Yes, the term Hispanic is misleading, as the respective article showns in great lenght. Notice however that I did not directed the link to that article, but to [[Hispania]. And the fact is that modern Spaniards do not corespond to the Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula! Once again you are excluding Portugal and the Portuguese people from this history. You see, the Iberian peninsula or ancient Hispania, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also (and Andorra; and Gibraltar!). The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Buri, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors, who called it Al-Andalus. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640 - see Iberian Union) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian derivative of the Latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, no article should emply that Spain is Iberia or Hispania! That would not just be wrong but also POV!

Thank you! The Ogre 11:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen. It's a good compromise. Sorry for screwing up the table! The Ogre 11:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cape Sounion

From User:86.85.44.73: Thanks for your cleanup input on this article, which I largely wrote. In one respect, however, I am not sure that the changes have improved legibility for the reader: repositioning the pictures means that they are no longer level with the text that relates to them-some of them are relegated to the bottom of the page. Is there any way this could be remedied? Best wishes 86.85.44.73 2/9/07

03-Sep-2007: Hello, User:Wikid77 here. Glad to hear from you: that "Cape Sounion" is a very good article, and I was troubled when it was drastically rearranged last month, shrinking all images to tiny thumbnails, with Figure numbers scrambled everywhere. Yes, reviewing the pictures, I believe they could be moved, reduced slightly in size to better match the text. The people waiting for sunset could be shown near the top. Also, Figure 7 could be moved below Figure 8 (then renumbered), to allow the 2 temples to be better compared. However, Byron's signature is mentioned in 2 isolated areas; I, personally, would repeat the signature image in both places, the first time as a small thumbnail with no Figure#; however, some image "purists" actively delete repeated displays of images, so the text might just have to refer by figure# to Byron's signature. What do you think about moving the images? -Wikid77 09:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see what was wrong with my original picture layout: the pictures were larger for clarity and in the right sequence so that they were level with the related text. Why not just reinstate it? But I leave any changes in your capable hands: I don't have any knowledge of Wikipedia's editing protocols. I am sure you can do a good job of combining clarity for the reader with respect with Wiki guidelines. Best wishes Andrea 86.85.44.73 3/9/07 P.S. I've discovered twomore useful pictures on the Dutch site, one of them a plan of the temple. Perhaps you could fit them into your revised arrangement? I've flagged them into the article.

19-Sep-2007: Hello again, Wikid77 here. I had several distractions this month, but I have moved/renumbered Figures 2/3, 7/8 to be nearer to the related text: I agree that the effect is better, especially to show the Temple of Hephaestus alongside its text references. The editing protocols in Wikipedia typically require incremental changes that build on previous revisions, to not throw out previous changes, so it's not usually acceptable to return to the original layout; however, I will review your original layout to see if more can be reinstated and insert the 2 new images, as well. I thought your earlier work was very good, yet other people's revisions must be respected and retained to some degree, and that's part of the whole Wikipedia philosophy. Although articles might be better if people, such as yourself, were the primary authors, therein lies the danger of someone forcing their views on others. While you have shown an objective view, others try to slant articles (such as pro-Jewish wording) for political influence or for selling products, such as Mediterranean tour packages or statues, etc. Anyway, I thank you for your patience in these matters.... -Wikid77 12:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wikid. I note your changes. Good as far as they go. But we still have the Byron pictures buried at the bottom of the page, miles from the related text. Can you not do something about this? Also, as I mentioned before, on the Dutch Sounion wiki-site, there is a useful ground plan of the temple (Sounionplan.jpg), which I think we should annex into the English article. Although this image is in Wikicommons, I have been unable to upload it, presumably because I'm not signed in. Can you deal with this? I take your point about accepting changes: but surely this should only apply where changes improve or enhance the article: where changes reduce its clarity, accuracy or usefulness, I see no problem with reversing them . Regards Andrea 21/9/07