Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:34, 19 November 2010

Policy in this talk page

Under my personal policy of "easier, simpler, better" I am organizing all entries under the correct user/paragraph and will be deleting old (and only old and out-dated mail, there will be no censorship) from time to time. It´s simply better for me to notice, find, understand and eventually to answer your mail. What can I say? I am simply lazy. Flamarande 21:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Misplaced Pages:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

• Valentino Rossi
• Bhumij rebellion
• List of analog television stations in the Philippines

• Beste Zangers
• Accessibility
• 733 series
• GROW (series)
• North Lynbrook, New York

• Navia jauana
• Navia intermedia
• Navia crassicaulis
• Navia liesneri
• Navia cardonae

• Beechcraft Bonanza
• Hull City A.F.C.
• Obinutuzumab
• Richard Osman
• Paula Sherriff

• Parasocial interaction
• Weather Center Live
• Malaetasi Togafau
• Min Chinese speakers
• Freddie Mwila

• Sun Girl (Marvel Comics)
• 2013 Arab Volleyball Clubs Champions Championship
• The School for Scandal
• Manuel Oribe
• Phil Hester (comics)

• National Library of Zimbabwe
• Nurul Huda Mosque of Gelgel
• New Upsala, Wisconsin
• N26 road (Ireland)
• Noke (worms)

• Central Directorate of the Judicial Police
• Power spot (spirituality)
• Rench
• Historical tiger hunts in Azerbaijan
• Vasily Popov (poet)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome. - JustPhil 17:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

How I did a merge

Here are some links showing how I did that merge you requested. I did it the other way round, with Transalpine Gaul redirecting to Gallia Narbonensis - if you disagree, let's discuss it at the talk page for Gallia Narbonensis. Anyway, the process (and I don't claim this is ideal or 'correct') was:

• remove text to merge into Gallia Narbonensis
• added text merged in from Transalpine Gaul
• remove merge tag after text moved here from Transalpine Gaul
• remove merge tag and create redirect to Gallia Narbonensis
• rewrite after merge from Transalpine Gaul to Gallia Narbonensis

The important point is to link to both articles in the edit summaries (links not shown above, but are shown if you follow the links). That makes it clear what is going on. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 16:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Maps; Western Europe

Hi Flamarande, sorry for not replying earlier - i've been away for a week and a bit. I don't have any real wisdom to share with the maps - I just loaded it up in an image editing program (GIMP in my case, since I was on a linux box, but even Microsoft Paint will do) and used the "bucket fill" tool, etc. Then saved as a png format to avoid losses. Good to see there's a couple of us trying to hold the fort on "AU" over at Western Europe ;-) Deuar 13:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Outsider

Flamarande, thanks very much for your contributions to the article and to your valiant attempts during the AfD's. I knew it was a losing battle, but I certainly appreciate your support. I think you and I both agree that notability requirements for fictional subjects are extremely silly for a web-based encyclopedia... I mean, what harm is it if there are 10,000 articles on webcomics? They don't "clutter" anything as the user is not likely to stumble across one unless he's looking for it, and the AfD's take up more bandwidth than the actual article does. Obviously there are many who disagree. But as you say, not a big deal, just a thwack to the ego.

Hope TylerXKJ doesn't get in too much trouble.

I'll be happy to answer your questions, either here or in the Outsider Forum. You may get quicker response using the Forum. - Ariochiv 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire

Hello! I have put your suggestion about the purple maps to a vote at Talk:Byzantine Empire, and I have left messages on the user pages of those people who contribute to Byzantine Empire topics. Please place your vote as soon as possible! Thanks, Bigdaddy1204 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

ref desk

Would you please take the time to read over the reference desk guidelines: "The reference desk is not a chatroom or forum, nor is it a soapbox for promoting your own opinions. Editors should rather attempt to represent fairly and without bias significant views published by reliable sources." Your recent additions on the Humanities desk (, ) are, i think, not really compatible with that guideline.—eric 14:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What you think is altoo irelevant to me. I don't like ppl who want to organize everything and censor personal opinon, and I also like to be honest so here it goes. Screw that! I, and way too many ppl, don't want a pure sterile scientific anwer. A bit of personal opinion never hurt anyone at all, and it is a part of the right of free speach. If you find fault in my two answers I can only point that Whistleblower comment about clio's answer was indeed funny and the second answer likewise (whistle somehow believed that the original questioner was going to kill civilians!). You didn't even have the impartiality and guts to complain to everybody who brakes these ignored rules, no you only complained to a single one. What kind of rules are these which ignore everybody else and pick only a single one? Arbitrary rules, that what they are.

What I really don't like is some overeager perfectionist who thinks that he is a censor and then points to some arbitrary rules as guidelines ("I am only obeying the law."). This is in my humble opinion a major flaw of Misplaced Pages: a "good"-minded cabal finds something wrong and then puts up some awfull rules which everybody is suppossed to obey or else... Screw that censor atittude, screw the cabals, and screw these rules. Flamarande 12:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande, I'd like to invite you to participate in the writing of the rules, so your concerns about them being used to censor people, or any other concerns, can be taken into account: Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/guidelines. StuRat 07:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Military career of Julius Caesar & Western Europe

Hello Flamarande, I made an addition to the above article yesterday about the fact that Caesar allowed his legions to slaughter many 1000's of innocents at Avaricum. I was surprised to find you removed it on the grounds that "there are simply no inncents in war". Please remember the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, for example. Like the Gallic War, WW2 was also a costly and unjustly started conflict. According to your teaching, one should not call those many millions of Jews and others who were slaughtered innocent at all. Do you stand by what you said? If so, please tell me why.

Also, I could not help but notice that in the Western Europe article you said that the "British Isles" was the correct name for Éire and Britain. You are wrong, and I should know for I am an Irishman. Because I am representing my country on this global scale, I cannot allow its independance to be degraded by incorrect presumptions on your, or anyone else's, part! Dónall Dubh (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

First of all, I think that comparing the Holocaust with the Gallic Wars is a unfair comparision FULLKSTOP. Your use of the Hitler argument means that you have lost the debate by default.

Second, I think that you are blinding yourself because of your national feelings. The most common term for the islands is currently "British Isles". I know that the Irish don't like it, but what can I say? It is the most used term. If you think that you can waltz into Misplaced Pages armed as a national hero I must warn you to grow a thick skin. Misplaced Pages is supposed to accurate, national feelings be damned. If you can demonstrate me that another term is used more often then I will gladly improve the article. Flamarande 21:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande, you have not answered my basic question. Are you saying that even the women and children killed by the invading Romans were not innocent? Surely they can't have deserved die, especilly since the Gauls were waging a defensive war.

I am glad you dropped the Hitler-argument. Dónall, you seem to see this isue in a simple black-white perspective. I like to think that I have studied political, and political history to a considerable extent and I know that nothing is truly simple. The world and everything is difficult, complex, and most of all relative. I like to honest so here it goes: Avaricum was resisting with arms against Ceasar and his legions who needed supplies desperatly (the Romans were in true danger of starving). Somebody who resists with arms isn't an innocent. Unarmed women and children were considered part of the resistance. Everbody knew the rule: If you resist in a siege ('as the ram touches the wall') no mercy whatsoever will be granted. This rule was known troughout Ancient Antiquity (and it was also known in the middle ages). Of course I (who have been brought in the modern world with modern values and morals) wouldn't condone the ensuing massacre. But I can understand why the Romans slaughtered everything in the first resisting city. As awfull as it sounds: it was simply effective. On average the next citie(s) surrendered immediatly.

To judge the ppl of classical antiquity (or the middle ages) by modern standards and morals is simply being naive, self-rightous, political correct, and hipocrit (despite of that everybody does it, but that is clearly POV). All these precious morals quickly fall aside in the hell of war. How about the bombing of Dresden? How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If such actions are not senseless (have a true military purpose - ending the war asap) they are justified. Hey, it's War, and War is Hell (if the mob truly thought on this truth they wouldn't scream: WAR! quite so often). Civilians are even today too many times valid military targets. It begins with the workers of the factories of war material, then with the workers of war supplies (food for the troops and the civilian population), and alltoo soon it goes on and on. In the end you bomb whole cities. I know that in our increasingly political correct world such a view is considred amoral, evil, etc. Such persons dream of a pretty pink 'civilized' war where everybody follows 'the rules' and they get amazed that in reality that nobody follows them. They don't study history or war and then scream about its brutality. Let me point out that in Iraq war nearly 200 persons are dying every single day and nobody gives a rat's ass. So much for the value of modern political correctnes and morals. Flamarande 23:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As regards the Western Europe article, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term. Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others." (see:"Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September, 2005)

Furthermore, “A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: 'The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its useage.'” (see, Sharrock, David. "New atlas lets Ireland slip shackles of Britain", The Times, News International, 3 October 2006.)

Indeed, In October 2006, Irish educational publisher Folens announced that it was removing the term British Isles from its popular school atlas from January 2007(see, Áine Kerr,"Folens to wipe 'British Isles' off the map in new atlas", Irish Times, 2 October 2006). With all this in mind, and in the interest of neutrality, I think it would be best if you replaced the term 'British Isles' with '(Great)Britain and Éire(or Ireland)', since 'This is very common and almost entirely uncontroversial' British Isles naming dispute. Dónall Dubh , 7 May 2007.

And for all that the Irish goverment officials does not own the English language in any significant way. Neither does the English goverment or the academia. The particular term is used by the majority of the ppl who use the english language. Therefore that term is 'official'. I particularly like the statement: We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. Last time I checked your country is located in the same archipelago which is shared by Ireland (Irish) and the United Kingdom (english, scots, northern Irish?, Manx, and the Welsh). Again, I like to be honest: That statement is simply stupid. A state and its ppl can be politicaly and economically independent from another state. But geographically independent (mixing geography with common politics) ??? That's utter nonsense and no doubts about it a statement from a politician (a lie told for political purposes). Flamarande 23:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC) You are not understanding. Misplaced Pages (supposedly) doesn't use neutral terms, it uses accurate terms.

Flamarande, I must say I am enjoying our debate. I'm sure you'll agree that without such discussions we wouldn't learn anything at all. I realise that it's wrong to judge the ancients by our (supposedly) Christian morals. Still, if we are to learn from humanity's past mistakes and achievements, we must distill the good from the bad, and denounce such incidents as at Avaricum as shameful. In the modern world too, I agree we cannot turn a cold shoulder to Iraq (and I think that more than 'nobody' give a rat's ass). I'm not the sort of person who opens a history book just to arbitrarily condemn ancient antiquity, and then close it to ignore the injustices of our time. Also, just because most people do ignore them dosen't mean we should go with the flow and accept war as being an integral and expected part of humanity. Finally, I will say there is no point in studying the history of warfare if we don't learn from it, in order to do something good and worthy in our world. As for Britain and Ireland, I cannot accept the term 'British Isles' as being accurate. Just because the Irish, who say Britain and Ireland, are outnumbered by those who don't, dosen't mean it's inaccurate. After all, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Also, you said 'Misplaced Pages (supposedly) doesn't use neutral terms'. However, on Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view I read that All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

Holy Roman Empire

Hello Flamarande, in regards to the Roman Empire's offical end date, i'd have to disagree and say it was in 1806 when the last Holy Roman Emperor Francis II abdicated. It is the offical date the Roman Empire was erased from the maps. Before then the words Roman Empire (including the "Holy" suffex of course) appeared on maps, and that is noteable. Weather or not the Holy Roman Empire was the true heir to the Western Roman Empire is debateable. I personally view it as the medieval Western Empire, and the Byzantines were the medieval Eastern Roman Empire. Both governments reconized the others Imperial rule, they just remained seperate states, even though were were failed attempts to combine them.

So with that said, and even if you personally dont really reconize the Holy Roman Empire as a true western heir, it is fact that 1806 is the date the state was taken off maps, and it should be considered to have that 1806 date be the "offical" Roman Empire end.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 06:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

May I ask where the Roman Empire was on the "hypotical" map from 396 to 800? Where was it in 477? If you assume the name of somebody else who has died 400 years ago and get everyone to accept your name as true does that make you the same person? I don't think so. Flamarande 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Persia

Well the long time gap had happened when Alexander the Great took over the Persian Empire, after many many years when the empire was reassembled it was the Persian Empire again. Empires can be ressurected, they have on occasion, and besides my point was the Roman name on maps, which in 1806 it was on, either way if the Holy Roman Empire was or was not a true heir to Ancient Rome.

• I feel it was Germany plus fragments of the ressurected Western Empire mutated in a medieval form, although on[REDACTED] my opinion isnt whats important, whats important is the Roman name was offically taken off maps in 1806, and that is notable enough to consider having the offical end date of the empire not in 476, or in the 1400's at the fall of the eastern or Byzantine Empire, but 1806 when the last emperor Francis II stepped down to Napoleon.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 07:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande, about what you said:

"May I ask where the Roman Empire was on the "hypotical" map from 396 to 800? Where was it in 477? If you assume the name of somebody else who has died 400 years ago and get everyone to accept your name as true does that make you the same person? I don't think so. Flamarande 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)"

Its not relavent that the Western Roman Empire was or was not on maps in 477. In 1806 the Roman Empire was on maps, making it the offical date Rome was taken off maps, and ceased to be a political entity. This is all regardless if you dont consider the Holy Roman Empire to be the true heir of the Western Empire!

Do you think the Barbarians just killed all the Romans after 476? The answer is no of course, most of the Germans that took power were already Romanized. The first two German rulers after the fall, Odoacer, and Theodoric the Great even answered to the Byzantine emperor. Roman tradition, and culture didnt just go extinct, as we know because our own society, and cultures in the western world are heavily influenced by Rome.

The people still considered themselves Romans after the fall of Rome, and told there children, and grand-children they were Romans too, this went on for generations, but also while mixing with the Germans too (if you want, check out Romano-Germanic). The Roman populace was never wiped out, and it is debateable that Roman civilian loses were minimal. 300 plus years later there was still a Roman essence among the people.

When things had settled down after all the Choas, and Charlemange was able to unify most of Western Europe again, it was right to revive the empire in the west, he was crowned King of the Romans, and took the title Imperator Augustus. The Byzantine Empress Irene must have reconized Charlemange's Empire as the true Western heir, or she would never have agreed to marry her son to his daughter.

There are many recorded Byzantine and Holy Roman Royal marriages, which further prove that the Byzantines reconized the Roman state in the west. One good example is when in 972, when the Byzantine emperor John I Tzimisces publicly recognized Otto's imperial title and agreed to a marriage between Otto's son and heir Otto II and his niece Theophano.

Saying that the Holy Roman Empire didnt have any real claim to be the the Western Roman Empire is ludacris. But thats not even the debate here! the debate is the offical end of the empire, and that date is 1806 when the last Roman Emperor, Francis II, was abdicated by Napoleon, and Rome, as an Empire was taken off of maps after being on them for millennia.

The history of Rome spans thousands of years of the existence of a city that grew from a small Italian village in the 9th century BC into the center of a vast civilization that dominated the Mediterranean region for centuries, to a Romano-German empire marking the beginning of the Middle Ages!--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 07:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande, I respect your opinions, and can see why you would consider 395 AD as the offical end date. We both have our diffrent views on this subject, and I believe both beliefs have high levels of credibility. Now some people might frown on my belief of the Holy Roman Empire as being the heir to the Western Empire, but here are some notable scholars that do agree with me.

• Henri Pirenne
• Lucien Musset

Lucien even went as far to say: "The Roman Empire did not fall, did not decline, it just transformed but so did the Germanic populations which invaded it."

I believe this transformation, was just the Medieval Roman Empire, of course the Holy Roman Empire didnt mirror the empire of Augustus, it was a mutation of that empire. Just like the Byzantine Empire was the medieval Roman Empire in the east. I have always believed that because of slander, and fear, from other countries in the west, the Holy Roman Empire was given a bad name in history. People must know that Spanish, French, and English rulers would denounce the Holy Roman Empire as not being Roman, because these sperate states, that were once in the Roman Empire, didnt want to be absorbed into the revived Western Empire, and they knew if they aknowledged the Holy Roman Empire's Translatio Imperii that would give the Emperor the right to reclaim Roman lands. So yes my friend, it was all political.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 04:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Hi, I've moved your report to here, generally for issues like yours the AN/I page is the appropriate place to bring that up. ornis (t) 16:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

replied on my talk. ornis (t) 16:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Restore the affected articles? I'm not sure what you mean. Any changes can be changed, but don't edit war and if there's disagreement you can't solve easily consider dispute resolution avenues. You can revert any changes, but be aware of the three revert rule and discuss things on the talk page. If there's anything else, just ask. WilyD 16:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

re: China

The operative sentence in Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict is "describe, don't prescribe" which is a very wise three words. The guidelines on all things China was written before that guideline existed and they are very prescriptive. The sentiment there that the lone word "China" can never refer to the PRC is old and very resistant to change. There is a strong KMT base on Misplaced Pages, as well as many Westerners have a poor response to the PRC. Real world politics intersect here and a very bloody war was fought over it. Take a long term view towards making changes, and participate in discussions on the guidelines. SchmuckyTheCat

I support your idea. But it runs into the issue of the pre-1947 ROC..., etc. But I think it can be easily solved if all editors agree with us. For example the pre-1947 ROC can be called Nationalist China or something like that.--Jerry 21:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Filing an RfC is not a bad idea. It should be worded as "What is the most common use of the term 'China'?" and not get into the rest of the dispute. The rest of the dispute is purely politics and our guidelines don't allow politics to be part of the decision, even though that has been the operative situation there for years. SchmuckyTheCat

I started a new discussion here, I hope you can give some more of your opinions too. Thanks.--Jerry 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to do what you're trying to do for a pretty long time until I just got tired of debating with the other people and that I could really tell that Misplaced Pages is KMT-based. Now I do support the DPP, but I'm not trying to make it more "Pan-Green," I'm just trying to make it less confusing but at the same time neutral (which is nearly impossible on this issue). So I'm willing to participate in this even though I don't really have any Chinese history books, my only knowledges of the ROC/PRC stuff come from internet and my prior learnings.

My point is that I think ROC should be split into two articles, Taiwan and Republican China (I don't really care about PRC being moved), because I don't like it when people confuse Taiwan with China. (I don't think I would ever turn to their side, don't worry) But keep in mind, Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, that's a policy, so we should keep cool and stuff.--Jerry 21:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, see this, I think we can work toward that direction.--Jerry 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

carthaginian women

Hi there, that's ok and I would be happy to help. As for hamilcar's daughters. Well i believe one was "Salammbo". However since her life has been popularised in myths and plays we can never be too sure of the facts, but it's probably worth a mention. There was also Sophonisba, daughter of hasdrubal. Ciriii 20:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

China

Hi there. I was reading the China (chinese civilization) article's talk page discussion about the whole naming issue and I agree with most of what you've said. Moving the PRC to China or redirecting China to PRC will not be easy, hovewer, and I think we could try another approach: I think we should aim for objetives that can be achieved in the short term before atempting bolder moves. Specifically, I belive we can realistic try to get the current china article renamed to Chinese Civilization and then get China to redirect to the desambig page. This proposition had plenty of support on China's talk page and has the big advantage of being able to evade the whole PRC/ROC debate that will ultimatelly stall any naming change propositision effectively maintaining the status quo. After we achive this and with the Chinese civilization article out of the way the issue of redirecting China to the PRC article can tackled more straightforwardly. PS: The same thing should be done to the korea article that is in the same situation as the China one. Ireland is different since the island exists regardless of the political entities...

What do you think? I want some feedback before opening this discussion on the articles talk pages. RIP-Acer 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Acabei de ver em sua user page que voce fala portugues. Eu sou brasileiro entao pode me responder em portugues se preferir. É sempre bom encontrar um lusofono por estas bandas :D Abraços RIP-Acer 14:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman View of Transition

thnx for u response, friend. u pretty much confirmed what i thought. it really makes me wonder, why do we bother making two articles or speaking of two entities (Roman Republic versus Roman Empire) when really all that changed was the politics. Thnx for clearing that up 4 me. My expertise isn't really in Rome or even Europe, but I find it all very interesting. take care and happy holidays. Scott Free (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NC-ZH

Hi Flamarande. There's a new discussion on the ROC naming issues again at WP:NC-ZH. I hope you will participate in the discussion. Here's the link: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#About_ROC.2FTaiwan_Naming_Conventions.--Jerrch 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Flamarande! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Misplaced Pages:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Response on my talk page. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your name?

Hi Flamarande, what iinspired your user name, please? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that – it does have a medieval flair, something knightly, about it. Cheers, JR

Hi,,Flamarande.. Tell me why do you think there is a dialect spoken in Brazil,man? we only speak Portuguese. The people who already lived here, before the Europeans arrived, have their languages, there are very few words we use from them like the Americans use "Tomahawk" or "Iwoa" in their languages, but there are no conversations in a strange dialect. The africans brought their culture, along with them some words like "Axé" meaning PEACE, or some other ones from their ancient spiritual religion. There are some regions in southern Brazil where the immigrants from Germany , Italy and Japan speak the language in their communities.

I am 40 years old , I have a degree on Portuguese and English and my studies have never revealed any more than what I have written above.Please , if you have any knowledge that I don´t , share with me. thanks Helio Dias, hamarana@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.249.152 (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good for you. Don't forget that the reference desk is not a soapbox. And nor are you supposed to post diatribes.

Been saving that up, have you? Well done. I don't quite see how it applies, however. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very civil response. In fact, it appears that your comment was directed at User:Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM rather than me. Apologies. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

81.215.what.ever

His original disruptive edit has been followed by three reverts, but he would still need to revert again today to be at 3RR. Let's hope he takes it to talk, though my guess is we'll see the same removal of content tomorrow from 82.124.24.52 or some similar variant. :) Brando130 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Reconquista

Done! Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Viva Flamarande! You can always place the {{underconstruction}} template (see Template:Underconstruction) at the begining of the article. Maybe that can help you in your efforts. Bom trabalho! The Ogre (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Has the cavalary arrived? One can only hope so.

Replied on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Empire

I protected Roman Empire because it was the subject of an edit war. I have no opinion about which version of the article is "correct". Indeed it is the fate of admins to always protect the wrong version. If you want to have changes made to the article, you need to follow the process outlined at: Misplaced Pages:Protect#Full_protection, i.e. establish consensus on the talk page then use the {{editprotected}} template to request that an admin implement the consensus change. You may already have consensus. As the protecting admin, I need to stay out of the details of the content dispute and not take sides. My protection of the page specifically does not endorse or condemn either version in the dispute, it merely serves to prevent further edit warring. Good luck, Gwernol 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I replied at the talk page. Hope that answers your question. Cheers, Jkliajmi (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

At Nabatean kingdom, can you provide at least some source? - Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page.Sure I can (but don't take my word for it (just type: 'Nabatean kingdom' in the Google search-field). Flamarande (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)End copied

A Google search won't give me much clue what you used as sources in writing the article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah well yesterday I saw a nice TV documentary in the History channel about Petra, the trade routes, the Nabatean kingdom, and the Roman annexation (it had that guy with the hat a la Indiana Jones). I was amazed about the subject (knew some things about Petra of course, but nothing about the kingdom - and they wrote it with a minor K). Searched in Misplaced Pages and found a couple of articles which certainly mention it, but no article truly about it. Searched with Google (one never knows) read a bit here and there, and then resolved to create the article. I guess many articles start in this way. I hope there is no problem but I don't have any book about it. Plenty of books about ancient Rome, but no books about the Nabatean kingdom. Perhaps I will buy one eventually. Flamarande (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

TV documentaries are citable.

As for Nabatean / Nabataean, you'll probably also find Nabatæan. Just like encyclopedia / encyclopaedia / encyclopædia. And probably similar in terms of modern vs. archaic spellings. - Jmabel | Talk 03:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman senate

I received your message. What in particular about the senatorial order were you interested in? RomanHistorian (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

hillsong critisism blackban

Just wondering if you could look at this page Cheers 60.229.34.127 (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese), as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Ngchen (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ngchen

I think we would be better off if you remove your comment about Ngchen's statement: "Your argument that this statement by itself isn't neutral is pointless and simply worthless. " It isn't polite or helpful to call someone's statement "pointless and simply worthless". This is especially true when it is someone like Ngchen who has a good record of not going to extremes in either direction. Readin (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Reponse to comments on Readin's page

You needn't warn me. I've been involved in the discussion before. While I agree with you, I also recognize the numbers and stubbornness of those who want to insist on a certain view of things.

China is a huge country. One of every 5 people alive today lives in China. They have been taught from birth that Taiwan is part of China and it has been made a central part of their sense of self-worth as Chinese people that they must someday subjugate the people of Taiwan. If only 1% of these people know Enlish, that's 10 million English speakers. (Taiwan has 20 million people total - more than Australia but most Taiwanese don't speak English). Of Taiwan's English speaking population, it is the immigrants and children of immigrants from China that are most likely to speak English as they are concentrated in the capital Taipei, and were given more opportunities during many years of discrimination. American descendants of immigrants from Taiwan are disproportionately children of mainland Chinese who passed through Taiwan on their way to America from China.

A big part of Misplaced Pages philosophy is the use of "reliable sources". Unfortunately, too many sources are willing to outsource their decisions to the U.N.. If you're making an atlas or writing and encyclopedia and trying to decide how to draw boundaries and label countries, you're going to be aware that whatever decision you make in certain places will draw hatemail and accusations. You're also going to be aware that the megacorporation you work for (that makes a lot of things besides maps) doesn't not want to annoy the authoritarian government of 1/5th the worlds potential consumers. So what do you do? You either copy the U.N. (that way you have a ready excuse for anyone who disagrees with you - "Hey, I just followed the U.N") (just like nobody ever got fired for buying IBM, no one ever got fired for using the UN as a source of country listings) or you do what has the best chance of keeping your customer base large. Either way, you don't list Taiwan as an independent country.

Another problem is the tendency of editors to put too much trust in the UN. People grow up being educated by their government, and tend to trust it on most things (even if they don't trust individual politicians). Many people see the UN as a wonderful united government for the whole world that represents mankind's best hope of coming together for the purposes of good and niceness. They don't see it as a collection of rich and powerful leaders - some of whom were fairly elected but most of whom became powerful by being the most successful organized criminals in their country.

Faced with all these difficulties, and with the knowledge that the influence of the Chinese editors will grow as 1 billion Chinese become richer with more access to the internet and to English education, I would like to see some standards established and am willing to compromise to get them. Otherwise I suspect that in a few years time the "China" article will indeed point to the PRC while the "Taiwan" article will be about the island or will talk about how Taiwan is a province of the PRC. I'm willing to compromise now to avoid an ideological bulldozer in the future. Readin (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question about what the Taiwanese have been taught, it depends on their age. The older ones were taught from birth that Taiwan is part of China, that the PRC is not the legit government, that Chiang Kai-shek was a wonderful and great leader, and that one day Taiwan would "reunite" with the "motherland". In short, they've were taught pretty much the same things the Chinese were taught, just substituting ROC for PRC, Kuomintang for CPC, and Chiang Kai-shek for Chairman Mao. But the younger generation, starting in the 80s, grew up in a time when freedom of speech because the law of the land. They were taught a variety of things, but they were also allowed to question what they were taught and discuss other possibilities. And the older generation who was brainwashed by the Chinese immigrant government has had 20 years to re-consider what they were taught. Readin (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

Okay. I'll take your advice. The only source that actually gives a comparison of the two empires is this one, and it's no where as detailed as Teeninvestor's article. Most other sources would probably fail WP:SYNTH if closely examined. However, I could see the article being merged as a background section into Sino-Roman relations. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 03:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A request

Take the high ground and disengage from your debate with Teeninvestor at the OR noticeboard, as the discussion there is essentially over. The noticeboard really isn't the place to debate the article, and continuing to attempt to do so at the noticeboard simply alienates other editors. Let Teeninvestor "have the last word" if necessary.

Looking at the comments at the AfD, I will hazzard a guess, and say that the article will not be deleted. If so, the next step will be to help Teen to rewrite the article and fix the OR issues. But the place to discuss these issues is back at the article talk page, not on the noticeboard. Good luck with your future editing. Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

BC-BCE and AD-CE changes

Hello.

Thanks for taking notice of the reversion on the Sextus Appuleius and Claudia Marcella pages.

However, I feel a bit hard done by in reference to the 'BC-BCE and AD-CE changes' question.

I try to only make changes to BC-BCE or AD-CE when more of the article is mine than what was previously there. As such, if I only make very minor changes, I will leave whatever usage of BC-BCE or AD-CE is there; conversely, if I significantly rewrite the article (to the point where pretty much all that is on the page is what I have written), then I think it is entirely fair that I use the whichever of BC-BCE or AD-CE that I prefer.

I have no problems with the BCE-BC and CE-AD reverts for Claudia Marcella and Octavia Major because I probably haven't made significant enough changes (and I did those early in my editing career).

However, on the Sextus Appuleius page, prior to my edit, there were 2 paragraphs, my edit changed that to c. 9 paragraphs. Essentially, everything that is now on that page is what I wrote, and so it seems to me that in that case, I should be able to use BCE instead of BC or CE instead of AD because it is pretty much a completely new article (just under the same title).

Now on the other hand, if the change was done for the sake of consistency, I'd be more okay with that...

)

Knobbishly (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cooperation at Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You and I have had a conflicting history, to say the least. However, I believe you are a valuable editor to the project. I admit I went a bit over the edge during the AfD(I was a noobie then) but here I see an oppurtunity for cooperation. Would you kindly lent your hand to help me improve this article?(I haven't been working on it in a while as I was on another project). Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind if I put resolved on the WP:NOR noticeboard on the above article? It seems the statements in question have either been removed or sourced. In any case, it is not a matter of OR, I believe.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Latin Europe - Germanic Peoples

Hello. Both these articles need help, if your not too busy could you check them out, and check out the talk pages, thanks. --69.47.218.54 (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On the Israeli street

...we believe that Iran already has the capability of bombing targets in Israel, certainly with weapons ferried through Syria to be launched from Lebanon by the Hezbollah, besides any long-range weapons of its own. Capability? How about already? Much as I wistfully appreciated your analysis that Ahmedinejad is just a big talker trying as any politician to win popular support, I think that's awfully naive. Hitler was a big talker, a populist orator – and I don't have to tell you what he did as he gained popular support. I'd rather not discuss this further, but wanted to share some background with you. Also please note: as I'm a Ref Desks regular, I welcome contributions on Ref Desk threads but remind you it isn't intended as a discussion forum but to assist in finding information. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Having read your clarifications, you'll find my concluding remarks there. I intend not to discuss this any further and hope I've succeeded in my intention to provide some insight of an Israeli citizen's viewpoint and not what's spouted by politicians. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You see I find it truly funny that you first post "Hitler was a big talker, a populist orator – and I don't have to tell you what he did as he gained popular support". The true juice the first post was 'Ahmedinejad = Hitler'. As I pointed out that this comparison was simply wrong, you suddenly end up with a "How about if you relate to "backing some terrorist organizations" in light of what I wrote about the Iranian arms supply to Hezbollah that has already been used against us here in the Western Galilee. I termed your analysis "naive" because the nuclear issue wasn't the point, but the Iranian capability of hostile acts against Israel. I hope I've explained myself, and this is ending here." May then I ask you why you simply had to mention Hitler at all?

In the end the Iranian backing of terrorist organization is precisely the funding and supply of weapons and ammunition of Hamas and Hezzbolah which these organizations use. If someone is truly interested in peace let him negotiate a two state solution and that means the dismantling of the illegal Israeli settlements, return to the 1967 borders (Israel may build its new wall but upon the 1967 borders and not pushing the Palestinian territory a few kilometers back), and sharing the city of Jerusalem. All of this is the price of peace in the foreseeable future and circumstances. Flamarande (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC) PS: Thank God for Godwin's law.

Talk:Derogatory_use_of_"Byzantine"#Merge

Perhaps you'd like to comment there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

BC-BCE changes

While you recent edit on this is ok, are you aware that we have a guideline for this at WP:ERA "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." - basically if an article starts with one system it should stay unless etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Disrespect?

I am quite puzzled by your edit summary here. Now my personal preference is the same as what is apparently yours (that is, I prefer BC/AD to BCE/CE). But the MOS says that en.wiki has no preference for one versus the other. Might I ask why this anon's edit inspired such venom from you? Unschool 13:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I came here because you left this comment on an edit on Lilith: "Repairing unilateral change made by 216.165.24.57. It was done withot following proper protocol, showing enourmous disrespect towards previos editors and increased the size of the article needlessly." I see that this has already been brought up above.

Whatever you think was wrong with that edit, that reply is simply uncalled for. I see nothing in there showing anything like any disrespect toward anyone, and the size increase of the article (only 24 characters!) was trivial in the extreme. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but all I can come up with is that you irrationally hate the terms "BCE" and "CE" and took your aggression out on the editor who added them. Please try not to overreact in the future, and you might also consider apologizing to the newbie in question. DreamGuy (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My sole and honest answer to the two posts above is the following: the only contributions of that anonymous contributor consist in changing the dating system of the article Lilith from BC/AD towards BCE/CE (this can be seen clearly here ). Said person could not bother itself with announcing, requesting, debating, or asking at all for the change on the article's talkpage. The contributor couldn't even bother himself into giving a bloody edit summary announcing his changes. That contributor did nothing constructive for Misplaced Pages at all.

I have noticed this trend in several article: dozens upon dozens of contributors slowly improve articles using the BC/AD (or BCE/CE) system right from the start. I have little doubt that some of these contributors would have liked to change said system towards BCE/CE or BC/AD. However they don't change it as they see the wisdom of avoiding revert/date system wars. Nearly everybody knows the compromise: "don't change the system without debating the matter on the article's talkpage first". However a small number of common vandals keep on changing the dating systems towards one or the other hidden under the cover of anonymity. IMHO the damage made by these pitiful anonymous vandals should be repaired with extreme prejudice. In my honest opinion their behaviour and changes show disrespect towards the work of the previous editors. You two (and many more) might disagree with my reasoning but that's life: most of us will disagree on many issues.

As for the comment of DreamGuy that "you irrationally hate the terms "BCE" and "CE" and took your aggression out on the editor who added them". I can only reply with the following: irrational hate is an extremely strong and exaggerated description for my edit summary. I haven't insulted the anonymous contributor, harassed his user/talkpage in any way, or reported his "contributions/minor vandalism" (and I don't intend to do any of these actions - I'm way too civilized to do that). I'm also not considering an apology to that "contributor".

When somebody news makes such a change and also something constructive I explain this matter on their talkpage in a civilized matter.

If anyone cares to examine my edits/contributions he will find many such reverts. However I never imposed BC/AD upon a former BCE/CE article (there was a single incident - a honest mistake). My favourites reverts, edit summaries, and explanations are:

Not wanting to hide my personal stand on the BC/AD vs BCE/CE conflict

• I'm in favour of using BC/AD. I'm an atheist living in the Western world but I'm not an anti-Christian zealot.
• BC (Before Christ)/AD (Anno Domini) is simply the most widely used dating system in this world. Nobody can reasonably argue against that fact. In fact, they are only really used when somebody is writing about ancient history (mainly to help the average reader and not to impose any religious views upon the reader).
• We live in a increasingly globalized World which as a whole was and still is culturally dominated/influenced by Western civilization if anyone likes it or not. As such the world simply uses the western calendar and that means BC/AD to a overwhelming extent.
• What is BCE (Before Current Era) and CE (Current Era) in my honest opinion? It's simply a pitiful measure of political correctness and nothing more. It is something like this: "we are going to use the religious neutral "BCE/CE", so that we and everybody else can still use the western calendar and "reasonably" deny its cultural and religious origins in order not to hurt the personal feelings of NON-Christians."
  • Nobody with a working brain is going to fall for that one. Does anyone for a second believe that a atheist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or any non-Christian is going to be offended in his personal sensibilities by the use of AD/BC? He will be offended only if he wants to be offended by it. If he is offended he will use another calendar. Most of us will be offended (as I am) by this pitiful attempt to deny the impact of Jesus of Nazareth and his teachings upon world history in the name of political correctness or worse, that "you" think that we are ignorant fools and don't know this and that we will be deceived by the use of BCE/CE.
• As far as I can judge this matter BCE/CE is something invented and mostly used by Americans. We shouldn't blindly copy their political correct bullshit - "Death to the American dogs! (joke)".
• As a matter of fact BCE/CE isn't being recognized by the automatic text corrector of Firefox. I can only conclude that BCE/CE is not a common feature of the English language. To change the English language for the sake of political correctness is simply disgusting.
• I am not telling anyone that Christianity is good or bad for that truly depends upon one's personal POV but its cultural influence (good and bad) upon the world is simply undeniable.
• Ppl who use BCE/CE didn't invent another calendar confusing a lot of readers who never saw CE/BCE before (it honestly confused me). They are simple "twisters" (they want to twist something around their own personal views)
• The compromise in Misplaced Pages is reasonable and should be respected. Sneaky changes are to be reverted with extreme prejudice. Flamarande (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Flam, for taking the time to give such a comprehensive reply. And while I don't necessarily agree that your edit summary is called for, I am convinced that you are sincere in believing that you are justified in doing these reverts with "extreme prejudice". I don't personally think you will advance the project with such summaries, but hey, I've been wrong at least as often as I've been right. Sorry that these folks have gotten under your skin.

By the way, though I do, as I said earlier, prefer the BC/AD system, I doubt very much that it will be around fifty years from now, except as an anachronism _{(ah, the irony of that being an "anachronism", eh?)}. Happy editing to you. Unschool 05:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This view was held fifty years ago, too; not to mention two hundred and more. If we live, I expect to be having this conversation in fifty years time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I hold that the way to deal with a revert warrior is to revert him; preferably many together, which is why I am willing to throw in one or two. If it meant interminable drama, it would be counterproductive, but 3RR is written to provide a nice cliff for our Wiley E. Coyotes to parachute over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Roman history

Are you pretty familiar with ancient Roman history (Scipio, Cato, Gracchi and the like)?--Doug Coldwell 22:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

More or less, but I'm truly little more than an amateur. Flamarande (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

O.K. That may be good enough. I may want to ask you a couple of questions then. Can you e-mail me?--Doug Coldwell 19:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You can place your questions here. Anonymity is to treasured, and I'm not afraid of revealing the extents of my ignorance. Flamarande (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have too many trollers following me since I am an active editor, so I can not ask any controversial questions here live. Don't be surprised if some will even respond to this simple message. If you don't want to email, then that is alright. It just had to do with Scipio the Younger and Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus which I can probably get somewhere. I'm studying Plutarch's Lives and it probably is there.--Doug Coldwell 23:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Click show in right corner to display the chapter.

Before the uproar started in 151 BC, Scipio (the younger) volunteered his services unto the Roman senators to go to Spain. They accepted him and he came to go into military service.

Then they went through those parts and had given him recommendations. They went from Italy.

There he served the Roman government for three years (151 BC, 150 BC, 149 BC). Then the Numidians laid wait for the Carthaginians. As they were about to utter bitter complaints to violence, the Carthaginians purposed Scipio to act as a mediator.

There he accompanied the Roman officers since it was unclear as to who was defending the fatherland. Of the victory against the Carthaginians, Masinissa and second in command, Manius Manilius. Scipio, as a practical down to earth man, was sent to besiege Carthage. He was valued for his good life experiences. It was unclear as to Scipio’s legal military status, as he was under age. A special law was enacted to allow him to serve. He was well educated and suited for military duty.

These leaders staying after stayed for the Roman senators at the siege of Carthage in 146 BC as requested by the Senate.

Scipio presented in grand speeches his warlike characteristics before the time of self confidence and these went from him to astute skills in five years (151 BC - 146 BC).

Upon the first part of the event of the siege of Carthage, then the soldiers came apart in their military skills. Scipio taught to them military training skills, preparing for battle. He continued his preaching of discipline daily until nightfall.

There were some fires in the Byrsa, where a few survivors were gathered together.

There stood in a window a certain mature woman not called happy, jumped to her death. As Scipio was making a short speech, her two children were thrown to their death, and she jumped into the fire herself, and were all killed along with the Roman deserters.

Scipio came up and rose them (senators), and embracing them said, "The day shall come when sacred Troy shall fall, and King Priam and all his warrior people with him."

Then the Carthaginians therefore had gone up again, and had a treaty from the Second Punic War, and finished it, and listened a long time of 60 years, even till break of time period of treaty, so they came together again.

Scipio took the older man (Hasdrubal the Boeotarch) alive, and was given his agnomen of Africanus for heroism.

Gaius Papirius Carbo (consul 120 BC) coming after Tiberius’ death (133 BC) to irritate and agitate the conservative party by approaching Scipio intending to put him out. The senators had not yet officially made land reform an official law, taking matters into their own hands.

Then the senators met with the needs of the poor and homeless at coming near to completing as law. Gaius Papirius Carbo put the land reform laws out, going then from being pure and clean.

He uttered bitter complaints therefore and went the next time into open public speaking. The next time he went to full irritation and stayed at the goodness of the conservative party. The next time he went from glaringly offensive.

Scipio had determined to be outspoken from a desirable viewpoint, since the poor and homeless would spend time in unclear matters as to what they were able to get exactly for land. They were not hostile, and it were possible for them to be at vision of peace at the time of the 500 iugera limit of land size.

From glaringly offensive Carbo came from desirable and called the leaders of the assembly of the popular party and took matters into his own hands.

When Tiberius had gone to the poor people, they said unto him, "We know, from the last time (Lex Licinia Sextia of 366 BC) when it came into unclear matters of land distribution, before that matter it had been with us at all seasons."

Serving oneself with all humility of mind, and with little tears, and many temptations, which happened by fate to them by the lying in wait the wealthy obtained more land as time went on.

How Lex Licinia Sextia kept back nothing that was profitable unto us, but have shown us, and have taught us publicly, and from matter to matter.

Testifying both to the self-serving wealthy and also to the poor Romans, deep sorrow for past wrongdoing going for good life experiences and faith toward our ruler self-help, the formally chosen one as our self-reliance basis.

Now, behold, it goes bound in the spirit unto vision of peace, not knowing the things that shall occur to us there.

But that common sense witnessed in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions will not stay with you.

But all of these things that do move you, neither count it your life dear unto yourself, so that it might finish your course with joy, and the service in life experiences, which it has received of the ruler self-help, to testify the good news of the grace of good life experiences.

Now, behold, it knows that you all, among whom it has gone teaching the realm of good life experiences, shall see my face more.

Therefore it takes me to record this time, that it is pure from the blood of all men.

For it has not shunned to declare unto you all the good advice of good life experiences.

Give careful attention therefore unto yourselves, and to all the special group of people, over the which common sense has made you overseers, to feed the organized group of people of good life experiences, which they have purchased with their own blood.

For it knows this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in amongst ya’all, not sparing a member of this particular special assembly of people.

Also of our own selves shall men fall down, speaking wicked and corrupt things, to draw away followers from what is good and proper.

Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three wars (Punic Wars) it ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Now, brethren, it commends you to good life experiences, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are free from wrongdoing.

It has coveted no person's silver, or gold, or apparel.

Indeed, you yourselves know, that these skills have given you special care to your necessities, and to life experiences that were with me.

It has shown you all things, how that so laboring you ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the ruler self-help, how they said, "It is more worthy of adoration to give than to receive."

When they had thus listened, they stood up, and did not offer praise with any of them.

Carbo did not feel sorry and rose on Scipio's neck and smothered him.

He did not sorrow at all for the words which Scipio never spoke, glad that he should not see his face anymore. Carbo did not accompany him to rejecting Gracchi’s proposals.

Click show in right corner to display the chapter.

It came to pass that while Scipio the Great was at satisfied, Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus had passed through upper education going to becoming very desirable. He had learned speaking, writing, and arithmetic.

They said unto him, "Have you received common sense since you are confident of this knowledge? He said to them, "I have not so much as heard whether there be any common sense."

They said to him, "To what then are you committed? Aemilius replied, "To the elegance of supporting one’s self in self reliance."

Then said Aemilius, "The grace of supporting one’s self indeed involves committment of deep sorrow for past wrongdoing, saying unto the people, that they should believe on them which should come after education, that is, on the formally chosen one: self-help."

When he was aware of this, he was committed in the designation of the ruler: self-help.

When Aemilius had applied these skills of speaking, writing, and arithmetic upon himself, common sense came on him; and he spoke with a variety of faculties of speech, and theorized.

All the aedile competitors were exactly twelve.

Aemilius came from the Roman elite, and did not speak boldly in the usual popular insinuating arts of others his age but instead chose of valor, justice, and integrity, showing and explaining the things concerning the realm of good life experiences.

Eventually several were softened, and believed, and spoke good of that way before the multitude. They came to him, and brought together the followers, discussing daily in the office of aedile.

This continued by the space of two years (curule aedile in 193 BC, then promoted to praetor in 191 BC); so that all he which dwelt in unclear heard the word of the ruler self-help, both self-motivators and Romans.

Good life experiences worked special miracles by the skills of Aemilius.

So that from its spirit were brought unto the healthy cravings to become a ruler or ranking officer, and abnormal conditions departed from him, and a good spirit came to him.

Then certain of the wandering from place to place self motivators, augurs, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of one’s own self-help, saying, "We command you earnestly by self-help which Aemilius teaches."

The seven years between 189 BC to 182 BC Aemilius was disposed. As chief of the priests of aediles he did nothing in military service. (His first ranking position was in 182 BC as consul after leaving Lusitania in 189 BC.)

A good spirit questioned and said, "Self-help I know, and Aemilius I know; but who are you?"

The man in whom the good spirit had leaped off him, and left him, and nonexistent from him, so that he fled out of that matter of the campaign against the Lusitanians 191 BC - 189 BC had nothing to show and was discouraged.

This was not known to all the self thinking men and Romans dwelling at desirable. Fear fell on him mostly and the designation of the ruler of self-help was decreased.

Many that believed in self-help went, and acknowledged, and showed their deeds.

Some of the Ligurians, which used piracy, sailed light vessels in the Ligurian Sea and as far as the Pillars of Hercules, to rob and destroy others at sea, trafficking in those parts thus bringing their boats together, and floating their pirate boats after these others. Aemilius counted his men at 8,000 and found it five to one against the army of Ligurians of 40,000.

So great a degree spread the word of good life experiences and widespread.

After these events of prevailing against the Ligurians, Aemilius offered for consideration in the spirit to teach his children Greece disciplines. After he had passed through military service he went to go to vision of peace saying, "Since I have been there of both these disciplines, my children must also see Greece techniques."

So they received both these disciplines his two children, valued of good life experiences and amiable. He himself stayed in an undetermined status for a year (182 BC - 181 BC).

About the same time there resulted a small stir of Aemilius’ divorce from his first wife Papiria (Aemilius divorced his wife Papiria Masonis around 185 BC to 183 BC).

For a certain man called belonging to Publius Cornelius Scipio, as a person that made silver metals for perfect skills, gave a large gain for the military.

Which the metals called together with the other ranking military men saying, "Silvers, you know that by these skills we have our prosperity.

Moreover you see and hear, that alone at desirable, and mostly throughout all unclear, this Aemilius has convinced and brought together many people, saying that he be good life experiences, which are made with skills.

So that not these our skills are in danger to be set at nothing. Also that the temple of the great perfect lifestyle should be scorned, and its magnificence should be destroyed, whom all of those of not clear thinking and the world gives great honor to."

When they heard these sayings, they were full of appreciation, and expressed, "Great is a perfect lifestyle of the desirable."

Rome was filled with organization. Having caught Scipio (a practical down to earth man) and Eumenes II of Pergamon, Aemilius’s companions in travel, he slowly with one accord entered into the theatre of warfare.

Then Aemilius did enter into the Third Macedonian War for the Roman army, the followers suffering little.

A certain chief of Asia being Perseus of Macedon, not a friend of Rome, bringing from the Macedonians, desiring them that they would adventure themselves into the theatre of warfare.

In confusion the Macedonians cried one thing and another. The Roman assembly was organized. The smaller Macedonian army parts knew not what each other were doing. Therefore Aemilius brought them apart dividing up the Macedonian cavalry.

Aemilius ended the last king of the Antigonid Dynasty, that had started with the death of Alexander the Great. The self-servers putting the Romans back in power of the Macedonian kingdom. The Alexander descendent kingdom signaling the end when defeated by the Roman army at the Battle of Pydna.

Then he knew that they were self-serving people, all with one voice about the space of one hour cried out, "Great is the perfect lifestyle of the desirable."

Then the Roman army had satisfied the people. They said, "You men of desirable, what man is there that knows not how that Rome, of the desirable people, gives reverence to the great perfect lifestyle, and of the image which fell down from being the best and greatest?

Seeing then that these things can not be spoken against, you ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly.

For you have brought here these people, which are neither robbers of assemblies of peoples, nor yet slanders of your lifestyle.

Wherefore if Scipio (minor) and the military men which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies. Let them sue in a court of law one another.

But if you inquire anything concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.

For we are in danger to be called in question for this time's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse."

When they had thus spoken, they dismissed the assembly.

IF you care to, could you give me your opinion of these writing. Something I found that I believe someone originally wrote in the fourteenth century. It seems to follow Plutarch's Lives fairly close (especially for Aemilius Paulus) as well as Livy's Histories and Polybius' Histories. They were obviously the sources, however not the author of these writings. Scipio's information came also from Plutarch and is backed up with Livy and Polybius records. You can answer in an email or here, whichever you prefer. Thanks for your input.--Doug Coldwell 11:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

IF you care to, can you tell me if the Scipio and Aemilius Paulus writings at least make some sense to you. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell 13:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't help you. I read books written by modern historians (Goldsworthy, etc). I do not read the original ancient classics (have a few translations). As I said: I'm truly little more than an amateur. Flamarande (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for your reply.--Doug Coldwell 17:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire

Hi Flamarande, I agree with you, but there's been a lot of dispute over the issue of what the Persian Empire article should do - see Talk:Persian Empire. Long story short, until recently it was a lengthy article which took the term "Persian Empire" to refer not to the empire of the Achaemenids specifically, but to any monarchy that ever ruled over Iran, and thus covered virtually all of Iranian history up to 1979. Over the last month or so, there's been some serious disagreements at the Persian Empire page about what exactly, the page should cover. The article is currently protected. I would agree that Achaemenid Empire should probably be moved to Persian Empire, but there's no consensus at the moment on that. You should feel free to weigh in on the matter on the talk page. john k (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Latin & diacritics

Take a look at "Veni, vidi, vici".

From what I've been able to find out (Latin not being something I know much about) the mark in question is sometimes used in Latin dictionaries to indicate vowel length (though not used by the Romans themselves).

(This is not intended as a criticism of your edit at "Civis Romanus sum". I'm just sharing.) --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, so the 'mark in question' is used by dictonaries to show how the word is pronounced correctly? It seems to me that these marcs act (more or less) like the international phonetic alphabet. However the orthograpical spelling of the word itself (and of the sentence) hasn't changed (right? Please correct me if I'm wrong here). Neither in Latin nor in English (it's clearly a sentence in Latin but can be used within an English sentence). Flamarande (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Thanks man, that was valuable info.

Chronological map

Don't just jump from 565 to 717. There must be a "Maurice" map to represent the large gains in Caucasian Iberia, but the erosion of holdings in Italy. Don't forget, the eastern border during Maurice's reign was the largest ever established by a peace treaty. So a date somewhere around 600 would suffice.--Tataryn77 (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

BC

Hi User:Flamarande, I'm really sorry I mistook you for the person who first proposed the BCE (note, on Microsoft Word BCE is highlighted red as incorrect spelling) system. I do agree with you that BC/AD is the most commonly used, and should be kept. It was your rant that made me think you were User:Warrior, but now I totally understand why you got mad, so thanks for clearing it up on my talk page.

A second issue is the Persian empire to Achaemenid empire move, I really want you to consider another proposal that we make an article, though there might be one already that divides the various Persian empires into sections, which contain a paragraph about them, and a link to the MAIN articles which they come from. For example, in the Ancient Persia article, under the section Achaemenid Empire which is a paragraph long, there is a part where it say's Main article: Achaemenid Empire. Like this, check this out or expand and change title of this to Ancient Persia, following the Roman articles method.

Like we would have Persian kingdom (they started out as a group of more than ten Persian tribes, then became a province to satraps-united by Achaemenes-clan leader of the Pasargadae tribe), Persian Republic (Xenophon coined this phrase, that they were like a republican form of government, Athens-Sparta combined) Persian Empire or Achaemenid Empire. Remember, these are names used to refer to Persia; Pars, Parsa, Parsua, Parsaumash, Persia.

Or we could have (which I think is better than the above described system, as referring to the Ancient Persians);

Persian Tribes (1,000 BC or 844 BC to 705 BC or 691 BC).

Persian Kingdom (705 BC or 691 BC to 550 BC).

Persian Empire (550 to 330 BC)

I know this might seem unusual or out of the ordinary, but this is just a rough draft, and working in progress proposal. If this can be done, a lot of things will be cleared up, with of course I will back it up with a pile of reliable sources in do order. So what do think about this proposal? Reply on my page, or start this on the Achaemenid Empire article, Thank you very much.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Persian empire to Achaemenid empire

Hi Flamarande, before I go into discussing the issue that has to do with this section, I was just wondering whether you accept the Persian Tribes, Kingdom, Empire proposition, I know you want just Persian Empire (now I want that too), but what I am saying is that we have a Ancient Persia article that links (not a disambug, and contains a one paragraph description of each article) to those three articles, if you like this proposal then say yes or no and give a brief answer, that is all I asked.

Now, I want to be clear, I was originally in favor of Achaemenid Empire, but reading your argument for Persian Empire, I have sincerely realized that Persian Empire it should be (however I am totally open to the idea that Achaemenid can be used interchangeably-this is because I am a open minded person).

Finally I must say, I commend you for your very detailed and accurate argument for the Persian Empire, and I'll try to see if I can find any good sources that can help convince some users that it was Persian Empire. Note, before Achaemenes, what was the kingdom called? Blank Kindgom, no, it was the Persian Kingdom. This realization was the Duh! moment for me. Therefore I thank you for helping me see the correct terminology.--153.18.19.52 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Back

I'm back now, are any of the issues you raised on my talk page still things you want me to look at? Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing BCE/CE to BC/AD and vice versa

Following your editing of date conventions at Statue of Zeus at Olympia, I wonder if you could tell me a really tactful way to say that this is just not done at Misplaced Pages, one that would get the idea across but wouldn't result in a storm of insulting threats.

There's some text buried at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style

Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.

...but it doesn't seem to be very effective. If you can come up with a brief text that I might leave at Talkpages when this is required, I'd be very grateful if you'd post it at my talkpage. Thank you. --Wetman (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev

This really isn't helpful in the slightest. Can you please read through the request in full and understand why we are doing the statistic collection first, before reviving all the transliteration/population/language decrees/etymological arguments we've heard a hundred times before? If you could retract your comment for now and leave it until after the statistics have been collected and discussed it would be a massive help Knepflerle (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Taivo has moved the comments to User_talk:Taivo#Kyiv Survey Comments Knepflerle (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I salute you too, comrade!

Qui se ressemblent s'assemblent? Ohconfucius 01:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi, sorry for removing (this is a joke) but since it was outside the signature, I was not sure to whom it belongs. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I hope that you truly believe me when I say that: objectivity is my only concern here. Saying that Scientology is "bad" and Falun Gong is "good" is dangerous and a judgment call. I think that we should use similar titles not because I trust the Chinese government (quite the contrary) but because we should be fair. But then I can be mistaken. Flamarande (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Have I ever said that Scientology is "bad"? I merely present what the sources say. Have you taken a look at Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong/sources? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious on your opinion based on WP:NPOV on citing this source. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Matrix, and what do we know about reality

Quoting you: "and I never can be absolutely sure of anything which I didn't see with my own eyes - and even then, we can be never truly be sure of anything - see the Matrix films :)", this is just like quoting myself :) a few years ago. By now I realized that our sensory functions convince us to believe stuff. You say that you are an atheist, then I would argue, that you believe, rather then know for sure, that there is no god, which I can respect. But consider people wanting to relax, do meditation, see stuff out of the ordinary after which they believe that there is god. Can you blame them? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope

Seeing your posts | here and other of your "contributions", I can only hope that the rest of the German society has a better level of historical awareness. Quest09 (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't expect me to read your post in my talk page, do you?--Quest09 (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, but you can read my honest and only answer to you first post (last sentence). Flamarande (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Flamarande. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Mediation of Byzantine Empire

A RfM has been submitted at the RfM page here for the article Byzantine Empire. You may add any comments you may have on this page and are welcome, but your presence is not required. Monsieurdl 23:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").