Jump to content

User:Doug Coldwell/Sandboxes/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Elmendorf in 1920.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK issue

[edit]

DYK nomination of Daniel Cragin Mill

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Daniel Cragin Mill at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CarpetCrawlermessage me 06:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Provided three source references for hook. See DYK template for reply.-Doug Coldwell talk 12:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The hook has a plagiarism problem. It quotes one of the references directly, but doesn't mark it as a direct quote or properly attribute the quote to the source. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Akhilleus for noticing this. Changed wording so it was not close to reference wording. Will that work?--Doug Coldwell talk 13:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Good work on this article. One thing, by the way: the NRHP infobox should never display a name at the top other than the official NRHP listing name. This isn't to say that other names shouldn't be used elsewhere in the article, especially when the NRHP name isn't the article name; it's just that the infobox is meant to display specifically NRHP details, like how the county listing page uses the NRHP names even when they're unusual. For that reason it's good that you give the alternate name in the Comments line, as you did, rather than inserting it into the first column. If there's any confusion about what I mean, see Court Avenue. Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I have approved the hook, and the article looks good now, other than the comments by Nyttend above. :) CarpetCrawlermessage me 18:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Can't help you with the NHP; I don't know that infobox. The generator of which I speak is http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php; it's run by User:Elkman. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! --Doug Coldwell talk 23:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

McDeamon

[edit]

You're welcome. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Helladic period

[edit]

Glad you liked my suggestion. I posted it there for the benefit of others-at-large on the Ref Desks, where I'm a regular on both sides of the footlights. I've refined this query approach recently in my day job at a historical archive which involves checking variant place names due to demographics and changing borders, primarily in 20th C. Europe, and sometimes they're just too obscure for the RD crew. I'm also quite keen on documenting the clarification discussions, and of course encouraging revisions to the mainspace pages which these WikiProject editors are better equipped than I to perform. Your own edit history (per your User page) is impressive, so may I thank you on behalf of one who despite nearly three years of sincere efforts, still falls far short of intended contributions. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Daniel Cragin Mill

[edit]
Updated DYK query On May 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daniel Cragin Mill, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dravecky for informing me.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Samuel D. McDearmon

[edit]
Updated DYK query On May 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel D. McDearmon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks Doug Paxse (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Doug Coldwell talk 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dokos shipwreck

[edit]
Updated DYK query On May 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dokos shipwreck, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Shubinator. --Doug Coldwell talk 22:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Athenian Mercury

[edit]
Updated DYK query On May 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Athenian Mercury, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Praise of the Two Lands (ship)

[edit]
Updated DYK query On May 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Praise of the Two Lands (ship), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

JamieS93 (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Ladies' Mercury

[edit]
Updated DYK query On May 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Ladies' Mercury, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for François Coignet

[edit]
Updated DYK query On May 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article François Coignet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK double

[edit]
Updated DYK query On 21 May, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Marc Sautetand Café Philosophique, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYK for Nebraska House

[edit]
Updated DYK query On May 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nebraska House, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Moved discussion to above Talk Page as that would be the proper place for the discussion. Also it has been previously tagged for this at the article.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Procopio Cutò

[edit]
Updated DYK query On May 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Procopio Cutò, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Beatriz Enriquez de Arana

[edit]
Updated DYK query On June 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beatriz Enriquez de Arana, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Agricultural Museum (periodical)

[edit]
Updated DYK query On June 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Agricultural Museum (periodical), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 11:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Car cooler

[edit]
Updated DYK query On June 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Car cooler, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jayco, Inc

[edit]
Updated DYK query On June 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jayco, Inc, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

nrhp infoboxes on Appomattox structures

[edit]

As i state at Talk of the ruins one, I think it's time to drop the NRHP infobox from the various Appomattox structures, and/or to seek proper infobox treatment for them as "Official Structures" of the NPS. It's causing problems elsewhere, in NRHP cleanup of formal Contributing Properties within historic districts. I revised the ruins one and the McLean House one, am pausing. doncram (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll get to work on that first thing this morning and remove the NRHP infobox from the various Appomattox structures.--Doug Coldwell talk 10:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Flash-lamp

[edit]
Updated DYK query On July 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Flash-lamp, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Flash-lamp

[edit]

You're welcome. I like technology-related DYKs and I suspect a lot of others do too, judging from the hits listed at WP:DYKSTATS. But I've noticed not many are interested in writing them. Your articles are appreciated for that reason. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Conrad Hubert

[edit]
Updated DYK query On July 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Conrad Hubert, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Candlewicke 05:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Giovanni Caselli

[edit]
Updated DYK query On July 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giovanni Caselli, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 06:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonicus

[edit]

Hello Doug, thanks for thinking of me, I think. This is one of those little jobs that may take you longer than a big job. I don't know the answer. I know how to find out and I know what to say if you can't find out. One has to look up Macedonicus in every classical source - shouldn't be too hard since most classics today is on the Internet. Try Perseus at Tufts. Then, then, read the reference in Greek or Latin. You are looking for words translated one way but actually written in quite another, or words that can have mutliple meaning but the translator has decided on one (his view). Or, the translator or editor may have drawn some dingbat conclusion at the end of a long web of speculations - professional classicists have to earn their living doing this you know - so you have to reiterate this is not the certainty HE says but only another dingbat conclusion (in so many words). And, there might be some scholarship - Google Books, Google Scholar. It may be there is a genuine discrepancy that never has been resolved. In that case the proper way is to present the problem in the article. More likely however one date on Wikipedia is wrong. But, you have to prove it. I usually do this amount of work on the whole article. In this case however the article needs formatting and content checking and references on every other sentence and whatnot. Whew, that is a lot of work. I don't usually have much luck trying to correct single statements when the whole article needs correction; someone picks me up on some idiotic thing and I have to either get in or get out. So, I have list of articles I am pursuing right now. This article is not on it. Much as I would like to play at being the great authority figure (wouldn't we all) I have to let the whole world down yet one more time: I don't want to break my stride on the articles I actually am expanding so I must say no, but the method I have outlined is the right one to follow I believe and if you have enough authority to stop them from deleting whatever you happen to say, even if you ask for references, you can insist the others follow something like it too. Reference, references, references! Thanks again for asking, best wishes. I'm tired now. Good night.Dave (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancient sources

[edit]

Do you know of some excellent English translation websites for Livy (From the Founding of the City) and Polybius (The Histories) where they would be searchable. I am interested in biographical information of Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, associated with the Third Punic War (more than Wikipedia has). Plutarch does not seem to have a specific "Life" on him, however there are some references of him in other Lives.--Doug Coldwell talk 17:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I don't know how to apply a "Search" feature to the on-line English translations.--Wetman (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Found a couple of ways around it then. 1) Look in each chapter here or 2) download from Project Gutenberg the books onto my harddrive, then search.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Roman History, Books I-III
The History of Rome, Books 09 to 26
The History of Rome, Books 27 to 36
Livius.org: Livy

In the article it says,

Where is there additional information on these "legal procedures" and "legal calendar?" Any details. What were they named or called?--Doug Coldwell talk 21:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The laws are the Twelve Tables; the calendar was just the normal religious calendar, with all the feast days and such. We have an article about that somewhere, I know I've seen it. Until then both these things were unpublished but part of the sacred knowledge held by the priests and other officials, and it was unfair for the plebeians who didn't know what they could and couldn't do and when the special religious days were, which would have affected the markets and everyday business. (Or at least, this is how later historians like Livy wanted to portray the earlier period.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, how could I forget, the Fasti. We also have Roman calendar, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I do believe you answered my question very well. --Doug Coldwell talk 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification

[edit]

Hi Doug Coldwell. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for consideration, however not interested in becoming an administrator at this time.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed your post at WT:RFA. Sorry for the disturbance, and keep up the good work. Regards, decltype (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The article states

Could you please see my entry on the Talk:William_Beanes page? TCav (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Lambert Union car 1901.png

[edit]

File:Lambert Union car 1901.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Lambert Union car 1901.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Lambert Union car 1901.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Practise/Practice

[edit]

Correct British, and I am led to believe Commonwealth, usage is to use "practise" as the verb form and "practice" as the noun form. This may be similar to "advise/advice" or "devise/device" in the US, should they make the distinction. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 12:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I must misunderstand you, for in De Viris Illustribus, the text is "those who practise public speaking". Here, "practise" is being used as a verb, which correct, BrEng usage. (One site I saw also suggested this usage was common among a "significant minority" of people in the US.)- Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 12:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. Perhaps I am misunderstanding it's usage. In this American dictionary it uses the verb as to practice a strict regimen with a c being the American way. I have never seen the s version used this way and I am an old man. While it may be correct BrEng usage supposedly an American librarian translated this from 1500 year old Latin. An American librarian, I would think, would use the c version as the verb practice.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, I now see your point. I am unable, unfortunately, to comment on the use of "practise" within the United States. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 13:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless it was originally written up in England, perhaps. Just my theory.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, these below rules apply throughout all the chapters. Supposedly it was translated from Latin in 1893, some 1500 years from when it was originally written. Since I doubt that the original was available, he "translated" it from a copy of a copy of a copy, perhaps some 1500 or so copies down. Can you imagine the flaws that were entered in through all these various monks when they put their interpretation on what they thought it should be. The end result is that there should not be, in any shape or form, a system of rules where it can be decoded into ancient Roman rulers that follows chronological timelines. However upon these last characters you will see they fit the rules EXACTLY. I’ll bet the farm you can not show me where these of 127 - 134 do not follow these of rules. Something is amiss! Can you tell me what?

I believe De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) to be only an allegory, written in the fourteenth century in England (reason why certain words are British English) - not in the 4th century from ancient Latin. The basics to decode it are to use opposites, for example:

  • With the use of the capitalized adjective On, the word it modifies is a coded word.
  • With the use of a comma directly BEFORE the conjunctions "and" or "but" then that segment to the next comma is a true statement, otherwise it is the opposite.
  • other meanings of the Biblical words that have EXACTLY the same number of letters with only the ending letter for sure the same.

The one we are talking about happens to be chapter 44. Looking closer at it I made a mistake in decoding. The word Achaia has 6 letters. It then comes out as:
Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, fifth Roman Emperor of triumph with the Julio-Claudian dynasty, was held in disrepute over the same ruled mortals and produced a history segment as misrepresentation of all of the emperors who were not in tunica (used toga instead), a tasteless history record on the ending of the dynasty.

Decoded all chapters to this point and others as well. They all fit, like you have to admit to of Nero's bio. The odds of an American using practise as a verb are about 1 in 5 million. The odds of an American research librarian using this spelling is about 1 in 50,000,000. Supposedly the person that translated this from ancient Latin had a Phd from Princeton University in library science. I would think he would not use any British English words - especially on such an important document. Have noticed so far, nobody disputes the Nero "bio" as I have left it twice in the thread. Apparently it does describe him pretty close. The only word you disputed was through which I have now chanced to triumph. Your 7 letter word that ends in h seems to fit better in the decoded version.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. In "De Viris Illustribus", as translated by an American, the use of "practise" does strike me as odd. However, this may have a been a mistake, or the person who uploaded it, or some other reason. How this relates to the extract "Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus... " I don't know. The extract itself works. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Two different items. Didn't mean to confuse you. The "mistake" only confirms to me what I have suspected for a couple of years now. Didn't know of the "mistake" until a few months ago. It turns out I have decoded most of the 135 chapters. It has taken me about two years. It turns out to be a list of ancient Roman generals or emperors. It is a chronological timeline. The "characters" surround that found in Petrarch's Africa. Now I know Petrarch did not know English, however Wyclif did. Of these that I have decoded there is over 1000 decoded words and the decoded word of EXACTLY the same number of letters fits into the story of that "bio" everytime. Are you familiar with Allegory in the Middle Ages.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Scipio Africanus is the center figure of Petrarch's Africa. Below is something to sleep on. See you tomorrow. Good night.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
My background is electronics and computer hardware repair. Worked on satellite electronics. I also was in real estate sales for many years before I retired. Absolutely no background whatsoever in ancient history. Everything on ancient history I learned from Wikipedia. Have done over 150 DYK's, mostly to do with some sort of technology. --Doug Coldwell talk 23:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed this; Doug, does this have anything to do with your question about De Viris Illustribus on the Reference Desk, and your puzzle questions? Hopefully I have cleared up all the info about De Viris Illustribus in my latest Reference Desk post...in any case, the sentence "I believe De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) to be only an allegory, written in the fourteenth century in England (reason why certain words are British English) - not in the 4th century from ancient Latin" is completely nonsensical in all sorts of ways. The practise/practice spelling is irrelevant, since that is a modern convention with no real rules; I certainly don't know which is supposed to be a noun and which a verb and if Richardson also confused them, it doesn't matter at all. Something written in 14th-century English is essentially in a different language (Middle English, which has nothing to do with spelling differences in modern American and British English). Medieval allegory was annoyingly popular, but Jerome was not a medieval author, nor an allegorist. I'm kind of worried about what you're trying to do... Adam Bishop (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do believe you found what I have discovered. Keep in mind I am not trying to do anything other than uncover what I found. It works out that following De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) as an allegory then all the chapters reveal ancient Roman characters. You said Jerome wrote this in Latin and that perhaps it has been recopied some 15 or so times over 1000 years. Then put into print and reprinted to 1893 when Richardson "translated" it to English. Then there should be no patterns of any kind of a allegory or any other cipher. However by following certain "rules" it comes out this way with a list of ancient Roman commanders in a chronological timeline. I didn't write it. All I am doing is deciphering it. It works for all 135 characters. The "rules" are at the top and it works for all 135 chapters. It shouldn't, but it does. If you care to see any chapter I am ready to show you with these rules above any indepth answers you need to prove it. Pick a chapter and I will gladly show you how it works. You can not critize until you have at least done that. Perhaps one we have been working on like, Augustus, Julius Caesar, or Domitian? Do you want to know which chapters they are? --Doug Coldwell talk 23:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I suppose...but a much simpler explanation is that Jerome was directly influenced by Plutarch (Jerome didn't write parallel lives of course, but they both wrote compilations of biographies). I'd be interested to see what you've done, though. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Directly below is about half of what I have done. I have decoded all 135 chapters already and am only fine tuning now. On the Reference Desk is the numbered chapter of Jerome's allegory. Following these "rules" on top here of Allegory reveals the ancient Roman character. Look at the Reference Desk of the allegory I placed there of Jeromes chapter. I'll answer any questions as I can give you details. Perhaps ask on the Reference Desk of the ones we have been working on, then others can participate.--Doug Coldwell talk 00:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Who's Who of ancient Roman commanders

[edit]

Rules of the Word Game

[edit]

Decoded Jerome chapters 1-134

[edit]

Noteworthy Chapters

[edit]

Chapter 1 speaks of Appius Claudius Caecus and his Appian Way and Aqua Appia that he built. It speaks also of his sons.

Chapter 3 speaks of Seleucus I Nicator and the Seleucid Empire and the Partition of Babylon after the death of Alexander the Great.

Chapter 4 speaks of Philip III of Macedon, half-brother of Alexander the Great. It also speaks of the seven wives of Philip II of Macedon.

Chapter 8 speaks of Cyrene, Magas of Cyrene, Berenice I of Egypt, Ptolemy I Soter, and the Ptolemaic dynasty (305 BC to 250 BC).

Chapter 67 speaks of Hannibal (arch enemy of Cornelius, commander of an Italian regiment) as invading Italy on a secret mission.

Chapter 66 speaks of Scipio Cornelius Africanus (the Elder) as being the person that became famous during the Second Punic War.

Chapter 76 speaks of Scipio Aemilianus Africanus (the Younger) as being the person that razed Carthage and ended the Third Punic War.

Chapter 81 speaks of the names of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus and how they came about, especially his agnomen Asiaticus.

Chapter 83 speaks specificially of Lucius Cornelius Cinna's broken promise to Sulla that he would not attempt any revolution in the republic.

Chapter 85 speaks of a Roman commander that spoke through others as if by ventriloquism.

Chapter 86 speaks of Quintus Servilius Caepio that destroyed his army troops in the Battle of Arausio. It speaks indirectly of Book 67 of Livy’s account of this battle.

Chapter 89 speaks of Sulla and his constititional reforms.

Chapter 94 speaks of a commander with the nickname "Hybrida", meaning "half-beast" because of his savageness and cruelity with maiming and torture.

Chapter 95 and 96 are two consuls associated to the same law of Lex Junia Licinia of 62 BC.

Chapter 101 talks of secret of possible murder of Mithridates V by his wife queen Laodice and of the incest marriage of Mithridates VI to his sister, also named Laodice.

Chapter 103 talks of mausoleum at Scythian Neapolis; it was used from ca. 100 BC to ca. 100 AD. It also speaks of Skilus having 80 sons.

Chapter 108 points out that the town of (Cordoba, Spain) mines coal.

Chapter 110 talks of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa as the workman and overseer of temples. Click article to see several example pictures of temples he worked on.

Chapter 117 there are 17 coded words, all of which when the decoded word is put in - fit perfectly. It talks about the event Crassus did giving away 3 months supply of grain to 10,000 families for public entertainment. It also talks about the 6,000 slaves he captured and about the First Triumvirate. It also talks of the ancient Roman army technique for motivation called decimation.

Chapter 131 is Titus Statilius Taurus the 1st.

Chapter 132 is Titus Statilius Taurus the 2nd . It also talks about him being a monetail or moneyer as the only history record he left.

File:17 article DYK hook.png listed for deletion

[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:17 article DYK hook.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

20 questions

[edit]

Are you a novellist? --Dweller (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, just a simple retiree learning about ancient secrets. I also like to solve mysteries. My background was hardware electronics.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

your email

[edit]

Just wanted you to know that I received your email. I'm not offended, and it isn't my habit to chase down individuals on Wikipedia and police their work — my interests are determined by the subject matter, not the user. Your project is probably not my cup o' tea, but I hope you find the work rewarding. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! Could you look over my latest new article on Lex Junia Licinia when you have a chance. I think with your expertise you will be able to find any flaws I may have in it. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

[edit]

for your recent work on Roman law....always a subject we can use more of...from a fellow enthusiast --达伟 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman dictators

[edit]

Hi, Doug. I've never settled down with Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic to tabulate the dictators, which would be an interesting exercise, but Broughton is cited on the list article page as the source. I actually don't have that much in hand about the early dictatorship outside the topic I was working on, which is Gallo-Roman relations.

In terms of number, other than the general unreliability of information about the very early, semi-legendary Republic, the question of how many dictatores has to do with whether you're counting dictatorships (i.e., how many times in ancient Rome such a title was granted) or the number of men who held the title, which would be less because of multiple dictatorships.

My broader interest in the Roman dictatorship has to do with examining the factual basis for the (hypo)thesis the Romans corrupted their own constitutional system, the quality and innovation of which is sometimes discounted these days, through militarism and expansionism. A year-by-year examination shows that this happened very gradually, not, as one often carelessly thinks, in sudden takeovers like the civil wars, which are only culminations brought about by exceptional individuals within a "perfect storm" of circumstances. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Of the list of Who's Who of ancient Roman commanders (89-134 directly above) of which I have mentioned to you before, it turns out in Chapter 100 to be this Dictator ratio of 63 to 51 as in List of Roman dictators in both the coded and decoded parts of Chapter 100. Pompey is broken down in detail explaining how all this works in case you are curious someday. It turns out all 134 characters are in a chronological timeline which starts in the 4th century BC and goes to the 1st century. As you can see by my little knowledge of ancient Roman stuff I certainly couldn't have come up with this list. I have decoded all of them and am just updating now. These I am showing you I feel confident are correct. Note also our friends in Chapters 95 "Junius" and Chapter 96 "Licinius" of the umbrella law Lex Junia Licinia. The Rules of the Word Game are above. I know as a skeptic you might wonder where I got all this and the answer is that all I did was follow the Rules. I believe it originally to be written in the 14th century and moderized in the 19th century.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Coldwell's pendulum

[edit]

Hey Doug, it suddenly occurred to me why your "word game" bothered me so much. I remember where I saw it before! I think whoever set up the rules of the game is playing a prank on you (or a prank is being played on them and it has passed on to you accidentally). Or perhaps the rules were intended as a joke but even their creator ended up taking them seriously. (And now I'm really wondering who the rule-maker is.) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well all I know for sure is that all 134 characters are ancient Roman generals, dictators, or high ranking people. In the list is the 12 Caesars, Sulla and Pompey for example. They fall into a chronological timeline from the 4th century BC to the 1st century AD. They all connect one to another as the sequence goes forward (i.e. chapter 95 is Lucius Licinius Murena and chapter 96 is Decimus Junius Silanus (consul) AND they are both associated with the Lex Junia Licinia). So this must have come from someone that had a very good knowledge of ancient Romans. Most of the information seems to have come from Livy sources. Some also came from Polybius, Plutarch, and Cicero. Not familiar with Foucault's Pendulum. Does it have something to do with ancient Romans?--Doug Coldwell talk 12:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Not about Romans specifically, but it's about the creation of conspiracy theories using rules that are exactly like the rules of your game (they originally do this as a joke but end up believing their own conspiracies). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
What I am researching has to do with ancient Romans specificially, so apparently it is something else altogether. Not interested in that IF it doesn't have to do with ancient stuff specificially. Now of course you did see above under Who's Who of ancient Roman commanders the list of some 50 (or so) ancient Romans I have decoded already using the very specific Rules of the Word Game. Pick one and check it out that it specifically follows these Rules. Pompey (Chapter 100) is analyzed throughly in detail if you can't pick one. After looking this over, ask me some specific questions. I'll be able to answer them, as nobody else has figured out this Code. Remember, your questions have to specifically pertain to the Rules of the Word Game. General statements do not mean anything.--Doug Coldwell talk 15:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Doug, you seem to be missing Adam's point entirely. In any case, the word game you're playing (or that's being played on you) is not suitable material for Wikipedia, so please don't put this stuff into any articles. In fact, it is questionable whether you should be using Wikipedia pages to play this game at all, as user pages are supposed to be used for building the encyclopedia, not private research projects (see Wikipedia:User page). So your activities as User:Douglas Coldwell are arguably a misuse of Wikipedia's resources. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So Lex Junia Licinia (that I put up last week) would not be an appropriate article? User:达伟 seemed to like it, as well as User:Cynwolfe and User:Marnanel. However if it is not suitable we can remove it. It does have to do with Decimus Junius Silanus (consul) and Lucius Licinius Murena, which turns out to be chapters 95 and 96 decoded. Can't help it, that's the way it comes out following the Rules of the Word Game.--Doug Coldwell talk 16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Doug, don't play games with me. Lex Junia Licinia seems to be ok, because it doesn't contain nonsense like your claim that Jerome's chapter about Hilary of Poitiers is, when decoded, actually about Pompey the Great (see User:Douglas_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_10#Analysis). As long as your articles are based on verifiable sources, and not some idiosyncratic word game, things should be fine--but as I said, it's questionable whether you should be playing your word game on user pages. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chaucer's special manuscript words

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Chaucer's special manuscript words at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Chaucer's special manuscript words

[edit]
Updated DYK query On February 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chaucer's special manuscript words, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for contributing this article to Wikipedia; it's a valuable contribution. I'm wondering if "he was the first to use these particular words in written publications" is entirely accurate. For not many, but perhaps a few of these words, aren't we really talking about the fact that the earliest extant uses of these words are in Chaucerian manuscripts? We can't presume to know what what written down but has not survived. Thanks. --Griseum (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do believe you are correct. I have changed the article to reflect this. If you can see further or better wording to convey what you are saying (which I agree with) please feel free to improve the article. Thanks for your input.--Doug Coldwell talk 17:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit you made is very effective. --Griseum (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Chaucer's year of birth

[edit]

Hello Doug Coldwell -- although I am sure it is well-intention,ed your entry of 1328 is an error, from a source long since known to be incorrect. Details are on the entry's Talk page -- would you be so good as to correct this (I have had bad luck when editing infoboxes -- formatting chaos has ensued!). Best regards, Clevelander96 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Good faith edit of the birth of Chaucer being 1328 based on 688 sources. See Talk:Geoffrey Chaucer#Incorrect birth date.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Clubmarx (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What's going on here? Are you aware that you created this in main space? decltype (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you could put all the references in a template that you transclude into the article page. But that page should be in the template namespace, not article space. Or perhaps a subpage of the article in quest~ion. decltype (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
O.K. --Doug Coldwell talk 16:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Clubmarx (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Change CSD for Chaucer subpages to G-7

[edit]

Doug - these pages cannot be deleted under CSD-U1 since they are not in your user space. Blank the pages and add {{db-g7}} and they can be deleted. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent emails

[edit]

Hi, I have received your three emails. I prefer to avoid off-Wiki discussions relating to Wikipedia, and keep all discussions on a relevant talk page. That said, I would like to assure you that your off-wiki comments will be treated in the strictest confidence. My interest in the article which I edited was purely from a technical standpoint, in response to your request here. I am afraid that I can contribute little, if anything in the way of content, nor indeed opinion on the quality of the material. If the connections and meetings which you mention did indeed occur, and are documented as such by reliable published sources, then I see no reason why they should not be added to relevant articles. However, be very careful of introducing original research; sometimes it is possible to do so by accident, see WP:SYNTHESIS. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I do appreciate your technicial skills, I must point out. They are way beyond what I can do.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dictator

[edit]

I added my two cents to your question on the Roman Dictator

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#How many official Dictators to time of Roman Empire

RomanHistorian (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 10:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hot and Hot Fish Club

[edit]
Updated DYK query On March 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hot and Hot Fish Club, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Materialscientist for notifying me on the DYK for Hot and Hot Fish Club. --Doug Coldwell talk 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Keedoozle 1949 supply room.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Keedoozle 1949 supply room.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Williamsburg Images

[edit]

Given your level of experience, I'm reluctant to just revert your gallery image size increase, but as I understand policy, it's to let thumbs come out whatever size is set by the reader, or, in many cases, by default. This lets the reader who is using a small screen have small images and users with wide screens have bigger ones, instead of one size fits all. Even at 1280x1024, the right-hand image is cut off, and it becomes a real nuisance at older sizes such as 640x480, or on mobile devices. Jim - Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 21:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize that. Reduced to normal size thumbs.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe(s) Report

[edit]
Updated DYK query On April 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe(s) Report, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Royalbroil for notifying me of the DYK I submitted for April's Fools.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe(s) Report received 9,500 hits for April 1, 2010.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Sauder_first_table.png)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Sauder_first_table.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

New article of Sauder Woodworking Company started today that uses the file described above.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Erie_J_Sauder.png

[edit]

I have tagged File:Erie_J_Sauder.png as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. Melesse (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

New article of Erie J. Sauder started today that uses the picture file above.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Erie J. Sauder

[edit]

RlevseTalk 12:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse for letting me know of the 2 in 1 hook today of the DYK.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sauder Woodworking Company

[edit]

RlevseTalk 12:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse for letting me know of the 2 in 1 hook today of the DYK.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Warren Antoine Cartier

[edit]

RlevseTalk 00:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse for letting me know.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Antoine Ephrem Cartier

[edit]

RlevseTalk 06:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse for letting me know.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

News article

[edit]

Hi Doug. Just wanted to congratulate on being written up in the Ludington Daily News. Thanks for all of your contributions. Cheers, Gobonobo T C 04:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the article and letting me know about it. I didn't know when it was going to come out. Just out of curiousity, do I know you in the real world? I have not figured it out yet.--Doug Coldwell talk 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I just came across the article and thought you might like to know. Gobonobo T C 12:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I was on vacation and when I got back I was bombarded with people at my apartment complex that noticed the article - since it was on the front page! I live in a small town and word got around fast. At least with the heads up I wasn't totally surprised, since I got your message while out of town.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Star Watch Case Company is a DYK today (now) and is the article mentioned I was working on, as mentioned in the newspaper article.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Your town is lucky to have you. Too much local history seems to fall between the cracks. Nice article by the way. Gobonobo T C 13:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice compliments!--Doug Coldwell talk 22:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Star Watch Case Company

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that the article on the Star Watch Case Company was accepted as a DYK.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Scented water

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)