User talk:Blood3

Contentious material

Hi Blood3, you are adding contentious and improperly sourced material to the biographies of living persons, such as this edit to Svetlana Kuznetsova and this one to Alicia Molik. Yahoo answers and other discussion boards, blogs, etc, are not considered reliable sources. Please acquaint yourself with our strict policy on biographies of living persons and refrain from adding unsourced material of this nature to articles. Thank you, Maedin\^talk 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Charlemagne

Your edit for Charlemagne was incorrect. Numerous royal families were descended from Louis I the Pious, Charles the Bald, Louis II, Charles III the Simple, Louis IV d'Outremer, Louis V. All these and no need to mention Bernhard.[1] --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page 2009 Rugby League State of Origin series has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Just James ^T/C 10:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Hi Blood3. If what you added to Pompey derives from the oft very dubious and imaginative Historia Augusta, you might clarify this as your source in the text: "According to... etc" (plus footnote with chapter and verse). Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Son of Agrippa-gun

I can do no more than offer advice (and a wonderfully cheap commodity it is) to tag what's doubtful and wait a decent interval before removing what's dubious: I note your contribution on the relevant talk-page. Meanwhile I'll keep an eye open anyway, check what I have - which isn't much - and post on the article-talk if anything crawls out of the cupboard. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Scipio Salvito's father

Hello Mr. Blood, your entree onto the site is about like mine, and that is a good sign, as it means you are interested. They are all trying to correct you. It does not look as though you have any enemies yet. You are probably too young. Maybe I should call you Young Blood, with the emphasis on the second word. Anyway you already got the signing-your-message lecture 101 so I won't repeat it. You ask me to jump in on an issue of scholarship. I am going to explain why I cannot do that. If you truly listen, you will understand the difference between WP and scholarly articles. The scholars, they are contributing to scholarship. They argue this and argue that. They are committed to their arguments, to their point of view. That is what they do, contribute authoritative points of view. They are like baseball players, developing a game. We're commentators up in the booth. We don't hit the ball, we don't have a point of view to offer, and if we did, we wouldn't be allowed to offer it. Nobody cares or ought to care what you or I think. I could study up on the matter and give you an opinion. That's not my job on WP. All I do is report the opinions of others. Naturally there is a little discretion in deciding who has an opinion worth reporting and who is out in left field. What you do is, you look at who thinks what. Then you report it. If it is general knowledge, you don't need to give references. If not, you do. If there are competing authoritive opinions then you give both, being very careful not to take sides. Above all you avoid inserting editorial opinions in the form of colorful words of approval or disapproval. For example, where a newscaster might say, Oh my G..., the airplane just flew into the side of the building, there are bodies dropping everywhere, oh those poor people, etc etc you would have to say something like, a Boing 707 has just collided with the left-hand tower under unknown circumstances. A shock wave was visible in the side of the building, which is glass. Some individuals were observed falling from the xth floor, etc etc. You get the idea. We are not here to praise Caesar, but to bury him, only, unlike Marc Antony, WE have to stick by that credo. It is the only way throwing WP open to editors of every conceivable language, background, citizenship, or religion can have any chance at all of working. Multiply this problem you think you are having by 2.5 million articles and then try to conceive anything here but total chaos. I hope this helps. Luck, and please do stay. Welcome to WP.Dave (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Scipio Salvito

Hello Blood

I have found no evidence to suggest that Julius Frontinus was either descended from a remote branch of the patrician Julii, or descended from the Cornelii Scipiones on the maternal side. More than likely Frontinus hailed from Narbonese Gaul; at least the great Ronald Syme thought so (Tacitus, 1958). His paternal ancestors must have received the enfranchisement from a patrician Julius, perhaps Julius Caesar himself many decades before Frontinus was born. By the time Frontinus began his career, many of the wealthy citizens from Spain and Narbonese Gaul were starting to find great political success in Rome.

Ancient Rome Lover — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.181.87 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blood,

There is great confusion over the identity of Scribonia's second husband. We know two things for certain - one, that he was a Cornelius, and two, that he was of consular rank. It is unlikely that the husband was Cornelius Scipio Salvito, who was according to the ancient sources a fairly pathetic individual. It is equally unlilkely that Salvito would have been elevated to the consulship, even debased as it was during the period of Caesar's dictatorship and the Second Triumvirate. According to Ronald Syme's The Augustan Aristocracy, (the best modern source on this period), he makes no connection between Cornelius Scipio Salvito who fought with Caesar and the P. Cornelius who was the husband of Scribonia and the father of Publius Cornelius Scipio (consul 16 BC). Indeed, he does not mention Salvito at all. In the absence of a reputable modern scholarly source making the case that Salvito was the husband of Scribonia, I believe we should follow Syme. Regards, Oatley2112 (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Blood.

I have read the article, and the information is taken from an earlier version of the Scipio Salvito page here on Wikipedia (in fact it is the version which I had to correct in 2012). The information presented there is wrong, as per the points I raised in the Talk:Cornelius_Scipio_Salvito page. To give a quick example of why this is, look at these two sentences: "Scipio never supported Julius Caesar, but was always in favour of Pompey. According to Suetonius, his character towards Caesar was ‘contemptible’.". The first sentence is pure fiction, as nowhere in the ancient sources does it state that Salvito was a supporter of Pompey. In fact, the Scipio who was aligned with Pompey was Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica, whom the article frequently confuses with Salvito. The second sentence is wrong, as, according to Suetonius, it was Caesar who found Salvito contemptible, not the other way round.

Finally, the Cornelius who was suffect in 35 BC was for some time suspected to be Scribonia's husband, but only because no-one knew his cognomen, and many suspected he was a Scipio. It is now known that that Cornelius was one of the Dolabellae, and so he could not be Scribonia's husband. Anyway, hope that clarifies matters. Cheers, Oatley2112 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Otho and Tiberius

Hi Blood,

The rumour that Otho may have been the grandson of Tiberius stems from Suetonius, who reports it as a rumour in his Life of Otho (1:2). To the best of my knowledge, Otho never claimed that he was related to Tiberius, and it is unlikely to have been true. Otho almost certainly would have referred to it once he became emperor, in order to prove that he had some connection to the imperial Julio-Claudian house, and give his imperial claim more legitimacy. A good example of this point is the usurper Nymphidius Sabinus who claimed he was the illegitimate son of Gaius Caligula as one of the justifications for his attempt to overthrow Nero in 68 AD. Also, it is unlikely that either Gaius Caligula or Nero would have left a direct male blood descendant of Tiberius alive, even if his grandmother was a ex-slave. Oatley2112 (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Lucius Aelius Lamia (consul 3) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lucius Aelius Lamia

Quintus Aelius Tubero (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lucius Aelius Lamia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Blood3. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)