User talk:Milton77778

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Pedanius Dioscorides, have removed content without a good reason to do so. Content on Wikipedia should not be removed just because you disagree with it or because you think it's wrong, unless the claim is not verifiable. Instead, you should consider expanding the article with noteworthy and verifiable information of your own, citing reliable sources when you do so. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! AntiDionysius (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I'm AukusRuckus. I noticed that you recently removed content from Apollodorus of Damascus without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Below, I've included some information about using edit summaries.

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Pedanius Dioscorides did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! AukusRuckus (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed from Cádiz

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Cádiz, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. You removed sourced material and deleted their citations, but as you did not leave any edit summaries it is hard to tell why (as mentioned in the September message, above). Please always explain when removing sourced content, and preferably leave a message on the article's talk page. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts and removing material (again)

Hello, Milton77778, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:57, 9 October 2024 User account Damianverde talk contribs was created by Milton77778 (talk contribs) MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 06:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have demonstrated in the matter below (#Editing at Apollodorus of Damascus), as previously, that you are unconcerned with complying with WP policy, e.g. removing sources along with the sourced content – as per above and below – without discussion or explanation; editing from multiple accounts (e.g.

Rex4459 (talk · contribs)

PCC556 (talk · contribs)

FrenchByop68 (talk · contribs)

CAC230 (talk · contribs), etc.);

not responding to concerns of other editors or discussions; and now, not even bothering with edit summaries. I have left you messages on various of your user talk pages, to no avail, it seems.

However, if you replace reasonably well-written, sourced text, with the kind of poorly-expressed, unsourced material (noted below) again, I will ask for a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard about your behaviour. (Probably, by rights, I should be doing so anyway, but I do not wish to, unless forced.) All I am asking for is some consideration and, most importantly, sources for your claims. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC) Refactored: AukusRuckus (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing at Apollodorus of Damascus

Moved to Talk:Apollodorus of Damascus

– More appropriate venue; other editors may see and join discussion

It is one thing to believe a point should be included – or given greater emphasis – in an article. I see no problem with saying that Cassius Dio's account may be historical. (I feel that was already implicit in the paragraph, though). It is quite another thing to replace a properly referenced statement, that makes grammatical sense in English, with a convoluted, repetitive and unsourced statement that comes across as opinion (as here) masquerading as fact,

such as your insertion:

This not only replaced sentences that made sense:

"Although some historians doubt that Hadrian would have ordered the death of Apollodorus, it cannot be completely ruled out since the numerous episodes of anger and violence of the Emperor Hadrian have been proven and this could have been the cause of a moment of anger and the fact that Dion Casio perfectly mentions the facts and cause really is to take into account or at least not rule out the possibility."

"Some modern scholars cast doubt on this event. According to the historian Jona Lendering, modern scholarship views the anecdote as unlikely to have occurred, due to Hadrian's likely preoccupation with far greater threats to his power early in his reign, and that the criticism Apollodorus proffered was acted upon.",

it removed the supporting cite and its included quotation from Lendering:

Most scholars believe that it is not true that Hadrian ordered the assassination of the architect. [...] There is ... serious reason to doubt the anecdote about Hadrian murdering Apollodorus, and its origin may have been that the architect died - of natural causes - at the beginning of Hadrian's reign, when several senators were executed.

There is no reason to wreck the legitimate work of others, even if you want it to say more (or something else). Doing so seems destructive and disrespectful.

I have rephrased your claim and marked it with a {{citation needed}} tag. If you do not supply a citation supporting: "While some, considering this episode as consistent with Hadrian's documented acts of anger and violence, do believe the execution occurred ..." (or some similar version of this), I will remove the entire claim.

Altogether, this constitutes a lot of work on my part, which is rightly the work you should be doing. In future, I will remove unsourced or purely opinion claims like these that you place, rather than spending time trying to improve the expression of material that you wish to see included, finding sources for your claims myself (as I have done before), or trying to communicate with you, only to be completely ignored. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC) Moved up: AukusRuckus (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THE source is dion cassius and there is no other ancient source that indicates another version then why do you doubt dion cassius? that same historian that they endorse in occasions when it suits them but in others not that is little sine I have source in if but if a logical analysis that fits perfectly with the well documented episodes of anger and iolencia of Adriano and this if that they affirm it ALL also the fact that his suggestions were accepted does not have to be in that moment but after being executed in a moment of calm of adriano who used to suffer of this type of brusque emotional changes, the sources you cite do not really prove that such proposals of apollodorus were carried out while apollodorus was alive could have been carried out after he was executed, in any case you should not put sources that do not really prove anything, I think a logical analysis many times is more correct and sensible with data that ARE WELL DOCUMENTED as the episodes of anger and violence of adrianus and the fact that he had bigger threats like the senators does not have to avoid that apollodorus is not a victim more. Milton77778 (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt Cassius Dio. I follow what WP:RS say. Cassius Dio is a source for his account; it is not a source for what modern scholars contend. We need a source to support that Hadrian's established episodes of anger are evidence for his killing of Apollodorus (not your opinion that they do).

Please read WP:Original research and WP:SYNTH. If, after you've carefully read those, you still genuinely think that the paragraph with your long, run-on sentence inserted, better fits the sources and WP policy, then I would be happy to think again. Let me know when you have had a look at those policy pages.

Please also respond to the points above. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC) [Refactor AukusRuckus (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)][reply]

Upon reflection, I think this discussion should be continued on the article's talk page, so I have copied the above posts there. If replying, please post at that page. (But please, still respond to the matters in the above section – at #Other accounts and removing material (again).) Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC) [Added slink: AukusRuckus (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)][reply]

(On 22:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC) at Talk:Apollodorus of Damascus § Death ordered by Hadrian, Milton77778 wrote:

Historians simply sell a story, a story based on what suits them. That is something that everyone knows. As I said before Dio Cassius is a more than reliable source and a source that several of those historians you mention have given as a source to support their claims. stories on other topics, curiously in the case of Hadrian they doubt Dion Cassius which leads me to suspect those supposed historians but the reality is that everything fits perfectly with Hadrian's episodes of anger and it is on what Dion Cassius was surely based at least do not rule out this possibility, also it seems ridiculous to me that they do not allow people to want to investigate on their own, in the end this is about everyone having a spirit of investigation and criticism. THERE ARE MANY poorly written, erroneous articles that people like me could do a much better job but they censor us, Wikipedia is a total lie and lost all quality and credibility years ago, really regrettable.

parts of which I wish to respond to here, as they touch upon editor behaviour rather then article content):

The spirit of investigation and criticism is alive and well, but here is not where it belongs: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Original research belongs in academia, in schools, in universities, in individual lives, in discussion, in news media, in journals, in public discourse ... in endless places – but not in encyclopaedias. If you truly believe WP has "lost all quality and credibility years ago" then the question becomes: Why are you here?

You flout the WP guidelines and now seem to complain about these guidelines. WP is something one chooses to be involved with; if you voluntarily join something, you follow their rules or seek to change them. What else?

As for your mention of censorship, I have wondered whether you have been trying to make sure only one view is given – in a few different articles, under your several accounts – or at least is emphasised in an WP:UNDUE way.

So, wondering if can please address my query, #Other accounts and removing material (again), above, about your multiple accounts? AukusRuckus (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On choosing to be here

Moved from Talk:Apollodorus of Damascus § Death ordered by Hadrian

– AukusRuckus (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 15:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC), Milton77778 wrote:

YOU base yourselves on what suits you and those same historians that you mention use Dio Cassius as a source to support their work on other topics but curiously here they doubt it, clearly for a question of convenience, I simply ask that my position be exposed as well, a position that is more logical since it is supported by the well-recorded cases of Hadrian's anger and that is more than proven and is much more reliable than basing it on erroneous interpretations of the sources that you mention and I do not think that only the ancient sources matter, I simply say that a correct analysis and interpretation of them must be made because many times the error was there in the interpretation not in the source.

That is why Wikipedia has lost all credibility and quality because they do not even bother to investigate and analyze a little the articles they take for the different topics and that has led them to place hundreds of thousands of erroneous data in thousands of topics and the worst thing is that they do not modify them as it should be and when someone really wants to contribute something correct they prevent us that is CENSORSHIP also it would not be bad if some rules were modified to improve the administration of Wikipedia and saying so is not bad at all and is more necessary but if they do not want to obviously it is because they want to continue keeping Wikipedia in mediocrity, I am not trying to impose anything I simply ask that my position be taken into consideration with respect to several topics only that, at least take into account and place in the articles my positions that are well supported by sources of truth because in several topics there is misinformation, demagoguery, erroneous data etc. BUT THEY DO NOT EVEN DO THEY CENSOR ME DIRECTLY and that is why I must create other accounts because they block the previous one, just I ask that my postulates be taken into account and published, since they are based on truly objective data. Like me, there are many other people who do not have time to be here. Lastly, I am here because I thought things had improved, but they are going from bad to worse and then they call themselves the "free encyclopedia". Truly regrettable. Milton77778 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To take some points from the above, singly:

I'm just another person, like you, who wants to contribute. So are all the other editors who have reverted or changed your edits. Why are you so sure we're all wrong, and you're right? (I ask out of personal interest, as I am fascinated by people who are so sure of themselves.)
Why am I obliged to agree with your view? I've read the same material, and I do not agree that your edits are correct.
I have seen plenty of misinformation on WP. When I do, I correct it, then find sources that support my correction – this is the bit you seem to miss.
If I see policies I don't agree with, I speak up and argue for modifications. I don't try to effect change by saying "you're wrong, and I'm going to do what I like". Do you join a club in Sevilla or wherever and start by flouting their rules, rampaging around and saying, "This is a mediocre club and you're all just trying to prevent me from doing what should be done"? Or do you go to the meetings and give reasoned arguments about how different policies could be better?
If you do not have time to be here; if you find the ethos here so uncongenial; if you find the quality so poor ... again, why be here?
Your views were immediately taken into account when I modified the paragraph to say that Hadrian's execution of Apollodorus is consistent with his recorded actions. We need sources to back up that statement.

– Just some general thoughts.

The other, article content, points I'll respond to on the article talk page, if you're still interested at this stage. AukusRuckus (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024: Castration

Please stop adding unsourced material as you recently did here at Castration §§ Europe and Slavery. Your insertion was not in-scope for the section where you put it and was not sourced at all. The pre-existing source for that paragraph made no mention of anything like the commentary you added. Please stop doing this, as it degrades the quality of Wikipedia articles.

I have now removed it. If you wish to reinsert it, then please include a reliable source, and place it in a section or subsection where it belongs / makes sense – as opposed to dropping it in to counter what you believe to be anti-European or pro-non-Western statements. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]