User talk:RomanHistorian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Welcome

Hi RomanHistorian! welcome to Wikipedia!

Be bold in editing pages and don't let others scare you off! To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp.

Here are some links that you might find useful:

  Wikipedia:How to edit a page
  Tutorial
Image:Edu science.png   Sandbox, the place where you can experiment
  Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
  Wikipedia:Five pillars
  Wikipedia:Manual of Style

You can contribute in many ways

  write an article
  fight vandalism
  Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome
  Improve illustrations and upload new images
  perform maintenance tasks
  Become member of a project that interests you

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log. If you need help, you can drop a note on my talk page or use Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. You can also type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia! utcursch | talk 10:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Hi

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:History .

Also, I'd like to collaborate with you on making our article a feature article! I'm considering picking up this http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0199261083/ref=ord_cart_shr?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance either on amazon or at the library. It looks like the seminal reference for the subject. JPotter (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You can find my email by clicking on the "Email this user" link on the left. also, I removed many of the hyperlinks as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Links. Please have a look and you'll see why I made the edits I did. JPotter (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Try now. JPotter (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 04:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Constitution

You have done/are doing an absolutely marvellous job on the Constitution of the Roman Republic page! If I can offer some advice though, you could do with a lot more references for the information you're putting in. Are you mostly using the Lintott book, or is that from somewhere else? Another thing, is that perhaps just cosmetically, you could do with fewer subsections: the subsections should ideally have links to "main page" articles. But I'll be really interested to see it keep taking shape. Keep going! Wikidea 11:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I only know bits and pieces about the topic, and a few general things about Roman law, so I couldn't be much help with content. I think you're doing a good job without much help anyway! Wikidea 10:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Late Roman army

Hi RomanHistorian

Could you give us a hand with the Late Roman army article? Thanks Wandalstouring (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good job!

Hey man, great work you're doing on the article, Constitution of the Roman Republic. Just want to say, keep that up. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doing a good job

keep up the good work

The Original Barnstar
for your hard work on Constitution of the Roman Republic JPotter (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 16:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retiarius peer review

Hello! I saw your name listed on the Peer Review volunteers page. I hoped you might take a look at retiarius, which I placed on Peer Review yesterday. The peer review is here. I'm looking at taking the article to Featured Article Candidates, but before I do that, it needs some more eyes to look it over and check it out. Any suggestions you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. — Dulcem (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review idea

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Tarquin and the Sibylline books.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Tarquin and the Sibylline books.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:King Tarquin and the Sibylline books.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:King Tarquin and the Sibylline books.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dictator Sulla.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Dictator Sulla.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution of the Roman Republic

The article is at present 163 kilobytes long. According Wikipedia:Article size, such articles are considered too long. Read Wikipedia:Article_size#A_rule_of_thumb. If an article exceeds 100 KB, then the article "almost certainly should be divided up". To maintain wikipedia's standard article size, a length 32 KB is preferred. The article certainly need to be spitted into multiple articles. The History and Origin section should be shortened and the excess information should be mention in a different article. For that, you can create a new article titled History and Origin of the Constitution of the Roman Republic. The Senate section is too long. It should be shortened and details information should be given in the main article Roman Senate. The Executive Branch section is too long. Give information in concise manner and create new article titled The Executive Branch of the Constitution of the Roman Republic where you can give the details. In this way the article can be shortened. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Executive Branch section is clearly too long. If there are different articles present, that's fine. But a confined article is needed only for the Executive Branch. Which is why a new article titled The Executive Branch of the Constitution of the Roman Republic can be created and the information in this article should be mentioned in two to three paragraphs. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

The Epic Barnstar
For your expansion of Senate of the Roman Republic, I award you the Epic Barnstar. I chair a body that has recently voted to hold its next meeting outside, "Roman style". What they meant by this was that we should all wear togas, but I thought that it might be fun to add a few procedural flourishes as well. Unfortunately, until your recent expansion of this article, I couldn't find any information on Roman parliamentary law. Thank you! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette alert has been filed

Hello again, RomanHistorian. Since you chose to delete my message rather than respond to it, I have filed a Wikiquette alert requesting an outside opinion on our handling of the situation. Please note that this should not be taken as a hostile action against you; I only want to know whether or not I did anything wrong in editing your article. I was left with little other choice since you apparently do not want to discuss the situation further. Thanks for your understanding. Paradoxsociety (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi RomanHistorian - I'm an admirer of your article space contributions (I gave you a barnstar a couple of sections up), but I have to say that I think you're slightly out of line on this one. First of all, I don't see why this should have caused you to lose work; didn't you get the edit conflict screen, which shows both the revision that you were trying to make and the one that PS did make? Also, there's no way that PS could have known that you were in the process of making a major edit. As I said, I think your mainspace contributions are excellent, but part of the Wiki concept is that others could be editing your work at any time, and doing so is no reason to get upset at them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The screen that came up did not have my modified work. I was only able to save it because it was still there when I went back on the browser. I am not always so lucky. And just so you know, many of my edits involve massive changes. It is most unfortunate that wikipedia doesn't tell you when someone is editing a page. Someone should change that. I am new to wikipedia, and I don't know much about how it works.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict, amusingly) That's odd - do you happen to remember what screen came up (what it said at the top)? Because what should come up is a screen that has the page as last modified on top, and the edits you wanted to make on the bottom, with the heading "Edit conflict:NAME OF ARTICLE". I have no idea why that wouldn't be happening for you. If it's not, though, you should probably do your edits in a text editor, and then paste them in right before you click "Save page". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It didn't say anything that I can remember, other than that there was an edit conflict.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Constitution of the Roman Empire

Once you have something to put in that namespace, put it there. You can't just go "reserving" an article title with the equivalent of "coming soon". Erechtheus (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that, if you want to have a "work in progress", you create it offline, or in your userspace at (e.g.) User:RomanHistorian/History of the Constitution of the Roman Empire? BencherliteTalk 06:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RomanDictator Sulla.jpg

I have deleted the above image as a copyvio. Though the creator of the statue died long ago, the creator of the photograph did not, and photographs of public domain 3D artwork are copyrightable in the US. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of your article

Not to worry - your article was never marked for deletion. What happened is that somebody moved "Template:Topics on Ancient Rome" to Template:Ancient Rome topics, leaving behind a redirect at the original title. Somebody proposed only that redirect for deletion. However, since Template:Topics on Ancient Rome was transcluded into your article, that means that the speedy deletion tag showed up there too. However, once somebody changed your article to transclude Template:Ancient Rome topics (which isn't up for speedy deletion) instead of "Template:Topics on Ancient Rome" (which is), the tag disappeared. I hope that helps clarify things a little. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I should note that featured articles aren't my area of expertise, as I've never written one or participated in the review of one (I'm working on writing my first one now). That said, I think your article is probably in the right vicinity. A couple of things that I think will probably need to improve before it reaches that status is that it does contain some unreferenced bits (for example, the first paragraph of senatorial powers, sizeable portions of Assembly of the tribes, etc.) and that it doesn't really make any use of internal wikilinks at all. There may well also be other issues that I haven't noticed, but I do think it's got potential to reach FA status - certainly more such potential than anything I've yet written. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
To answer your questions, I tend to err on the side of citing everything, though I'm not certain what the consensus view at FA evaluations is. As for sources, I think four books specifically about the subject in question should be sufficient. Quality of sources has to be considered, and while I don't think four newspaper articles would be sufficient, your sources all appear to be serious scholarly works. I can't guarantee that this is how the featured article types will view it, of course, but that's my view. Finally, I think User:Yannismarou might be a good person to direct your questions to - he seems to have substantial involvement in both ancient Green and Roman topics and in the featured article process. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is only my own view, but I think the question is fundamentally one of verifiability and completeness: does the article cover in appropriate detail all topics that you would expect it to, and is that coverage verifiable to reliable sources? Because I know relatively little about the subject matter, I can't say that it's complete (although it seems to be to me). As for verifiability, I think that if the information in the article is backed up by four serious scholarly books, we can be pretty confident that it's correct. Moreover, because these are books (as opposed to something shorter), I would assume that the information in the article is expanded upon and, as appropriate, defended with examples, references, etc. This gives still greater confidence that the information is correct - confidence that a simple sentence in a magazine article or something would not give. Besides that, some of the references in Augustus seem to be articles on very specific subjects used to support very specific facts - this is of course perfectly acceptable and appropriate, I wouldn't be too concerned about your article's lack of these. Probably you could dig up another five or ten sources and drop footnotes from them into the article as appropriate, but doing so wouldn't meaningfully expand either the article's completeness or its verifiability, and for that reason I'd be surprised if the FA reviewers insisted on it. Of course, Yannismarou might turn around and tell me that I'm out to lunch on this, and that FAs must absolutely have at least fifteen references, but I doubt that that will be the case. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi. Sarcasticidealist is correct: it's only the old "Template:Topics on Ancient Rome" (now an unused redirect) that's in line for deletion. I also reckon I'd agree with his comments about Constitution of the Roman Republic, though I'm no expert: your work looks excellent. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll read through it more closely a little later (I have to log off for a while now) and let you know what I think. I'm also no expert in FA evaluation, though. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution of the Roman Republic

Hi again. I've read through the above and reckon it must be closer than farther from FA quality, though I know nothing of the FA process itself. (I also can't comment on the article's accuracy.) The only major omission seems to be wikilinks, which I've begun adding to this "fork" of the article along with a few suggested rephrasings/formattings. In case I've started wandering off track, I've only amended the opening section thus far (plus, as a consequence, the "See also" and "Notes and references" sections at the end of the article). Places where changes have occurred are marked by a beige background (the template {{bkg}}).

I've heard of "Good Article" (GA) status -- but again, know nothing more -- which might be the intended stepping-stone before FA status. If you like, I could nominate Constitution of the Roman Republic for GA status and see what happens...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • In the section I focused on, the opening, I included a few more wikilinks in case people arrived at this article with no particular understanding of "Senate" (PS should that be capitalized as it's a particular kind of senate?), "consul", "magistrate" (in the Roman sense), "plebian" (in the Roman sense), etc. However, I guess you have a better overview, so if you think people will've already informed themselves about these concepts before reaching this article, fine.
Something purely stylistic, but I found the number of short asides/clarifications in brackets to be a few too many. Maybe that's just me, though.
"Footnote columns": I meant the effect of {{reflist|4}} rendering the footnotes in four shorter columns side by side rather than one long column. Ditto the idea behind the "See also" layout.
Would you like me to continue working through the article's sections as with the opening section in Constitution of the Roman Republic/Sardanaphalus?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conscript Fathers

I just wrote a new article on Conscript Fathers. It has to do with members of the ancient Roman Senate. Since it looks like you are quite familar with the topic perhaps you could look it over and tweak the article as necessary if you have time. Thanks. --Doug talk 21:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your input on the current discussion of merging the material of Conscript Fathers into Roman Senate would be appreciated. --Doug talk 14:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)