User talk:Nicknack009

Archives and sub-pages

• Talk before December 2005 archived
• Talk from December 2005 to February 2007
• Talk from February to December 2007
• Talk from 2008

Caesar's bust Arles

Hi, You reverted a picture of a bust of Caesar found last year, because "- it's been pretty well established that almost certainly isn't Caesar". But have you any evidence of what you say? I found interesting to have an idea of what this great man really looked like as this bust is from 46BC, and that is my only point. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3932198.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lago17 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed and dealt with some time ago - see the talk page archives and the article Arles portrait bust. The bust is not of Caesar - it was only identified as Caesar for the sake of publicity. It's more likely Caesar's quaestor Tiberius Nero. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

John Morris (historian)

Thanks for catching this. I was checking on old edits made by Stone Savant, and found that he added some bad material at John Morris (historian). Unfortunately I did not notice all the more recent work on the article and reverted that as well. Thanks again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cín Dromma Snechtai

Hi Patrick, I noticed your edits for the CDS article. Just letting you know that I've been working on it briefly myself, then continued assembling information in a Word document, but somehow shelved the whole thing until an indefinite time in the future. Hope to resume work on it soon. Regards, Cavila (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I noticed you linking to it from some other articles I watch, saw the "confusing" tag and dug out a couple of books. Form your work in progress it looks like you've got quite a lot more material than I have, but pending your further edits, I think it's now a more useful article than it was. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

New List for Wikimedians in Ireland

Hi Nicknack009:

I'm delighted to announce that we've started a new Ireland Wikimedian email list, that you can join, at mail:WikimediaIE. For Wikimedians in Ireland and Wikimedians interested in events in Ireland and efforts in Ireland. It's there to to discuss meetups, partnerships with Museums and National Archives, and anything else where Wikipedia and real life intersect. --Bastique ^demandez 16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Amergin Glúingel

I saw this article when going through new pages - looks fantastic, keep up the good work :). Ironholds (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Exclusive: Geoffrey of Monmouth's 7th century original found!

Hi, don't know if you are still interested and/or have the patience to get involved again, but the article Chronicle of the Britons has been substantially revised. I can only describe the current text as sheer lunacy, even compared to the former draft. For once words fail me. Our reasoned arguments and explanations have been ignored entirely, even including the indisputable and salient fact that this text is actually just one of about three score similar ones in Middle Welsh etc etc etc etc... well, you know the academic background well enough, which is more than can be said for the contributor. This sort of thing makes a laughing stock of the Wikpedia. Sad.

Quote:

"It appears that the original "very ancient book written in the British language" was a document known to us as the Tysilio Chronicle. This original Chronicle is said to have been compiled by Saint Tysilio; an exiled British monk in the mid 7th Century. Tysilio's work was a collection of ancient material including what appear to be Druidic traditions, stories, lessons and legends that relate to events and personalities before and shortly after the Roman Conquest of Britain written by any number of now unknown Romano-British writers. Tysilio's chronicle was maintained after his death in c.640 by the Abbey of Saint-Suliac in Britanny and it appears they continued to add events to it after his demise; for example they have included the death of Cadwaladr Fendigaid in 688AD.

Walter of Oxford claims to have copied the 7th Century original from Old Welsh into Latin himself and it is this version which is probably referred to as The Good Book of Oxford by other contemporary authors such as Geoffrey Gaimar. If Walter gave the original "very ancient book written in the British language" to Geoffrey of Monmouth (who then kept it) then it makes sense if Walter, during his old age, translated The Good Book of Oxford that he had written from Latin into the version of Welsh contemporary to his time (called "Middle Welsh"). A copy of this document is what survives today. Geoffrey of Monmouth published his Historia Regum Britanniae in 1136 during the lifetime of Walter of Oxford. Walter was familiar with the original material used by Geoffrey and raised no concerns at the time regarding the accuracy or not of Geoffrey's work. The 7th Century Tysolio Chronicle was probably deposited in Monmouth by Geoffrey and is almost certainly now lost. Perhaps it was destroyed during the campaigns of Edward I when many Abbeys in Wales were plundered, perhaps it lasted as late as the uprising of Owain Glyndwr. Maybe it survived as long as the turbulent reign of Henry VIII - nevertheless, it cannot now be found."

Nuff said. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxiz

Hey, you might be interested in this and this. I've been trying to assemble an infobox for medieval texts in general, but they could do with some extra help and further suggestions. Cavila (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Myryvryan Arachnology

Fair enough, at least now people will be able to find the bloody thing by typing in the name everybody uses! Redheylin (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Conchúr

Hi, I am afraid your claim to be an expert on Donegal Irish is lamentable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conchobar, where I have entered the correct pronunciation of this name. Please note I have given one source on the page, and 3 on the discussion page, showing that this name is pronounced Crochúr in the Cork, Galway and Mayo Gaeltachts at least. I am afraid you do not seem to know your stuff. Please cite your SOURCES before vandalizing the page. No "original research". Djwebb1969 (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,you said you have heard the pronunciation chon-a-chu-var used, but, surely - SUREly - surely you know that Irish is a language the majority of whose speakers are learners? Is it even possible not to know that? The Gaeltacht native speakers say Crochúr - people in the Galltacht may say conchubhar. Ultimately the problem is the Irish government's failure to produce a proper dictionary with pronunciations indicated. This in turn reflects the problem of choosing which dialect, or even having to produce three versions with Ulster/Conn/Muns pronunciations indicated. The pathetic Foclóir Póca is quite another thing - the pronunciations indicated in that book are inauthentic as they reflect a madeup artificial attempt to create a new lárchanúint. Eg "oi" in Irish can be pronounced "o", "i" or "e", but the FP committee decided to go with "o" in each case, to make things simple, producing pronunciations like "anosh" for anois - even though no native speaker says anosh. I am compiling a dictionary with Cork pronunciations.Djwebb1969 (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I said I have heard the pronunciations /ˈkʌn̪ˠəxəwəɾˠ/ and /ˈkʌn̪ˠəxuːɾˠ/ used. If you're not going to bother reading what you're correcting I see no point in further conversation. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your projects

I'm looking forward to what you're working on coming up. Your creation of the Darini article helped spur me on to get contentious and create an account. Since then I've created a few related articles. If you've noticed I found MacNeill available at archive.org and have linked it. The Corcu Loígde-Duibne vs Uí Fidgenti-Liatháin age or centrality related issue is something which deserves a modern perspective line or two but I'm having trouble with it. Maybe it was a social configuration thing. DinDraithou (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

DinDraithou

Hello. I see you're having an interesting chat with this user, who I've had some trouble with resulting in his being warned. I've decided not to respond to any talk page comment of his that doesn't contain a serious argument. If he can't engage in serious discussion of controversial edits but continues to press them, he'll soon be in violation of 3RR. Arxack (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Continue to slander me and this will become a problem. I believe another administrator has since told you to stop this, and me too, and canceled your complaint. So stop, or I'll have to waste time making a report of my own. Please. DinDraithou (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

DinDraithu, there's no slander here, and no need to escalate things. Both of you need to leave one another alone. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Again you haven't done your research, but I guess you're Arxack's pal and that's why. He then came to my talk page again but I just deleted the message without replying. You need to leave this alone too I think, since you were a little uninformed before. Nicknack009's talk page isn't the right place. Please. DinDraithou (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Drumanagh

Hi. I am sorry that we are reverting each other about some phrases in Drumanagh. I hope we can deal with the differences (that are small, if you think about the overall article). Indeed, allow me to post this wiki rule: [1]. As you can read, users may post their thoughts on their user pages (even if are from blogs). Furthermore, no wiki rule states precisely and clearly that we cannot use quotes from a blog. Sincerely.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That refers to user pages on WikiQuote, not to articles on Wikipedia. Besides, you called me a Nazi on the Drumanagh talk page, so so I don't intend to have any more dealings with you, and any further comments you make on this page will be deleted.. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at WP:WQA, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your personal attacks on 3rd party, fully-neutral editors in WQA is a disgusting act, and is completely inappropriate. Just because neutral editors do not see the same as you do, does not give you the authority to attack them - perhaps it's because you, indeed, are wrong in this situation. It is understandable that "nationalism"-related articles tend to raise hackles on both sides, but oversensitivity is not useful in those situations. Your further related badgering of the other editor against whom you complained until they "retired" from Wikipedia is a complete breach of the collegial atmosphere that Wikipedia works under. Please, do not ever attack those who neutrally attempt to assist. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Complaining about personal abuse by other editors, and not accepting your verdict, delivered from on high, that it's all in my head, is not a personal attack. "Wikiquette", to you, apparently means honest editors rolling over and letting bullying monomaniacs accuse them of being Nazis without a murmur. Why are you even monitoring the Wikiquette page when the only action you are prepared to take is to warn people who complain about abuse from others? --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I do see someone has been oversensitive, but it's not you. It's someone who's been hiding behind a facade of neutrality to hide the fact that he/she cannot deal with criticism, like. Cavila (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BWilkins, I have also commented on your talk page about this. Please show us the diff where Nicknack009 made a personal attack so egregious and "horrific" as to be given a one-warning-only threat of a block. Unless there's something I missed, not only are you misusing the templates, but in your words above you appear to me to be behaving in a rather uncivil manner yourself. Please explain. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

PS - May I also recommend: Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack. Cheers - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Attacking the neutral, third party editors in WQA was the genesis of the warning. No further comments will be made. I don't read your talkpage as I considered the situation closed and over with. Move along with useful editing, it's as easy as that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Not you, too! Good editors are leaving this place in favour of the bad and the ugly. Is there some superior Wikipedia I don't know about. Cavila (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't leave. I'm still looking forward to Ptolemy's Ireland and all the rest! DinDraithou (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Is there anything I can do to help? Please let me know. You're one of the people I rely on to have a sane head around here. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)