User talk:Nicknack009/Archive2

Back to User talk:Nicknack009

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caratacus, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Khumric

Look Nicknak009, of course Khumric is a language! Please don't pretend to know anything about Khumric-Welsh history then make childish mistakes like that! Khumric is the ORIGINAL name for the "Welsh" language. There was NEVER any such thing as "Brythonic". That was made up in the 19th century as part of the major re-writing of British history that you appear either to be ignorant about or have just accepted. The result is the same. Welsh derives from the Anglo-Saxon term of abuse for their old enemy, the Khumry. "Wallische" means foreigner, outsider.

The weakness in your material is that is neither based on extant manuscript and record evidence nor or any study of the Khumric people of history. Our team's been doing this for 40 years, produced seven books and numerous papers, articles, etc. So although we'll argue about detail we could well do without your own re-writing of history!

The HUGE irony here is that you claim to be disillusioned by Wikipedia because contributors don't live up to your claimed standards. Well in this case the boot is rather on the other foot and you have made a ludicrously crass statement. They've spoken Khumric (Welsh) for over 2,000 years and many experts claim 4,000 years. There are remarkable similarities between Khumric and Egyptian. But as it's not on the 'Net you won't know about it!!!!!

E-mail me!

Tim M, realhistoryradio@aol.com Ancient British Historical Association

Typical passive-agressive bullying tactics of advocates of Wilson & Blackett's gibberish. Go away. --Nicknack009 17:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(edited to make it clear who the accusation of passive-aggressive bullying was directed at in this specific instance, i.e User:Realhistoryradio, after he proved he wasn't a bully by removing the accusation and calling it "libel".) --Nicknack009 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Further proof, as if it were needed, of NikNak's smears. He doesn't/won't/can't argue the facts. People like him, pretending to "know" something about our ancient British history, simply smear and smear again. Suggest, speculate, attack. But the wind is starting to blow in the other direction!

Obviously NikNak thinks that the Khumry used sign language in the mid 6th Century and at other times in their illustrious "Dark Age" (a bad term but people know what we mean by it, historically) period where they controlled much of what we now term Britain. They didn't have a language...so work the rest out for yourselves, Wikipediaers!

Not playing. Go away. --Nicknack009 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL. We could always give you your own Podcast, using your own claimed version of non-existent Khumric where we all us sign language and ignore all collected history and evidence. Should be great. You have nothing to say, so I'm glad you're keeping it short!!!!

Thats 1-0 to us, then!

Tim

Nemesis

thanks for stepping in and doing the Nemesis the Warlock page. I made a start yesterday but my computer died on my leaving it in a bit of a half done mess.

Ta.

No problem. There's still more to do, and I wouldn't want to steal your thunder. --Nicknack009 15:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No worries, you look like you've got it sussed. Logan1138 16:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to admit, Pat Mills made quite an impression on my young mind. --Nicknack009 19:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan Moore

Thanks for pointing the Kurt Weill pun out to me, but shouldn't the pun be made more explicit? Perhaps point out the why of the pun. (I, for one, don't get it). --Soyweiser 22:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything complicated, he just used a homonym of Weill's name that makes him seem a bit disreputable. "Jill de Ray", deriving from the French alleged child-murderer Gilles de Rais is slightly naughtier. The links are kind of easter eggs: if you follow them, you get to find out where he got his pseudonyms from. I like them as they are, and I think they're in the spirit of the pseudonyms themselves. --Nicknack009 22:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Leprechaun

Hi, I noticed you from the Irish mythology talk page. I was wondering if as a mythology buff you could come and give me some pointers on improving the leprechaun article. I've cleaned it up a bit already from this to the one you see now, but I could do with some ideas for further research, stuff that needs including etc. And if you have any resources online that you use could you add them to the talk page. Its [un]surprisingly difficult to find decent information about the subject matter (just try a google search) :) Thanks - FrancisTyers 18:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but it's not really my area. Besides, I need to take a bit of a break from Wikipedia. I've been spending too much time here and it's getting to me. Good luck with it. --Nicknack009 18:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Lugh

Hi, Nicknack. Even if there are no lines in the old texts that explicitly say "Hey, this gent named Lugh, he is a god!", he is still considered to be cognate with Llew and Lugus, was one of the Tuatha de Danaan (by adoption, but still...), and is generally considered by mythographers (according to my readings, anyway) to be a deity of some sort. How is he a 'former' deity? I am genuinely curious about this opinion you hold on the matter. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's something that bugs me about Irish mythology that so much is stated as fact when it's really just inference and reconstruction. All surviving Irish mythology is post-Christian, and it's been thoroughly de-paganised. There are no gods left. With a few characters, like the Dagda, the scribes are prepared to admit they were once called gods, but even so they're all presented as mortal kings and heroes, complete with death-tales. It's pretty clear even from what's left that characters like Lugh and Óengus and the Morrígan were once gods, in the lost, older versions of the stories, but they're not now, just as, for example, the story of Noah's flood in the Bible was once a polytheistic Mesopotamian myth, but isn't anymore.

The connection with Lugus and Llew is one good reason to argue that Lugh was a god - but then, the existence of Lugus is largely inference from placenames and later Irish and Welsh legends, and Llew is even more thoroughly de-deified than Lugh. If not for the Mercury parallel in Caesar, it could be argued that the original was a hero, like, say, Achilles, rather than a god. There are some who argue that the Tuatha Dé Danann were not gods but heroes. I think the best approach is not to assume but to argue from the evidence. --Nicknack009 22:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on all points except the last one. It makes me consider 'former' as being original research. G. Dumézil (1977), R. Jakobson (1969), R. Hutton (1993), and many others agree that Lugh is a deity of some sort, regardless of whether the situation is hypostatisation, apotheosis, or a cthonic entity in his own right.

In the Dindsenchas, the story of Oenach Carman, it can be argued that Lugh, along with the rest of the Danaans, are acting as entities that we would consider deities by virtue of their concern with the blighting of the fields and what they do in conflict against Carman et al. To quote Dumézil, Lugh is 'patron des techniques précises' after being admitted to the hall of the Danaans. It has been argued by some scholars that the Danaans, or more specifically the Tuatha de Danaan, are the 'Tribe of the Gods of Craft', based on reasonable etymological inferences from their tribal name. All in all, to posit that Lugh is a 'former' deity seems to go against what is commonly understood already by both scholars and neopagans alike. We cannot list Lugh as a 'former' deity because he is considered to *be* a deity.

Having checked your edit (removing "former" again) I would also say that the article as it stands has nothing to do with neopagan interpretations of the character. Perhaps it should include something about that, but as it is it's about the character from medieval Irish literature. --Nicknack009 22:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The character of Lugh in medieval Irish literature does not exist in a vacuum, isolated from everything else. If we are to write articles about deities of any sort, we cannot base the information on such a narrow interpretation of sources. Does Lugh exist only by virtue of being included in that medieval Irish literature? Of course not. That literature is the result of oral tradition. Our role is to draft these articles to reflect prevailing research and significant schools of thought, not on our own original interpretation of primary source materials. Can you give evidence of prominent Celticists, mythographers, theologians, or professionals in other directly relevant disciplines that categorically assert Lugh to definitely be a former or a non-deity?

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"Non-deity" is a misinterpretation of what I wrote, and I don't believe that working from published primary sources is "original research", at least not if we're just describing those sources rather than coming up with some novel interpretation of them, and I'm not. The evidence for Lugh is the medieval Irish literature and later folklore he appears in, and in those he is not a god but shows unmistakeable signs of having been a god in earlier versions of those stories. I don't think that fact should be glossed over. If we just say "Lugh is a god" that ignores the nature and quality of the evidence.

I'm not going to get into an argument over this, partly because life's too short but mainly because I'm not going to be able to get online much over the next few weeks. But I still think it's an important point. --Nicknack009 19:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Boudica

Hi, I really liked your article. I do agree somewhat that it portrays the Romans from a pretty negative POV. In any case, I expanded the intro in accordance with the WP:FA guidelines, and made some other changes. You might consider leaving messages for the people who commented at WP:FAC and ask them to revisit the article. Cheers, Kaisershatner 19:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a story the Romans come out of well, I agree. Suetonius Paulinus comes through as an able commander though, and when Classicianus comes in it seems the Romans have realised that brutality to the Britons could be counterproductive. Thanks for your contribution. --Nicknack009 21:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan Moore

I notice that you've contributed to this article in the past. Now it's the comics collab of the week. Please stop by and see if you can help bring this article up to featured article quality! ike9898 15:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you're a bit disillusioned

I can see entirely what you mean though. adamsan 18:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I was driven off for a while by a sustained campaign from one user in particular, but I think I've got things back in proportion. --Nicknack009 11:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have very much enjoyed our brief period of working together on some articles. I understand, though. As the site becomes more popular, and people find out they can edit but don't bother to read, understand, nor respect the principles of Wikipedia, it can be very frustrating. Still, if principled folks stick together, things can eventually work out. (She says, with the relative hopefulness of a relative Wiki-newbie, cruising over to vote on more articles for deletion.) --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - it's nice to have an ally. Here's to more fruitful collaborations! --Nicknack009 21:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Trad Brit Hist Cat

I've been annoyed by the "Mythical Kings of the Britons" succession boxes. I don't really hold with them anyway for ancient and "dark age" stuff. For the cat, if good old G. of M. was mentioned in the article body, I took it out. If you think is a stupid thing to do, please change it back, but I'd really rather do without the boxes. For some of the cat removals at least, like Kings of Picts or Gwynedd, it should be uncontroversial. Let me know if it is a lot of work and I'll get busy fixing it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not overly keen on the succession boxes either, but I do think the traditions represented by Geoffrey of Monmouth and so on are interesting and deserve a place here, so long as they're clearly marked as legends. In the case of Cassivellaunus, Cunobelinus, Caratacus etc I have taken pains to distinguish genuine history from legend and wouldn't like to see my hard work go to waste. Articles like Asclepiodotus still need someone to do that, and I'll probably end up doing it myself when I familiarise myself with the sources for that period. In short, I think myths, legends and traditions are interesting and valuable even when they're not historical, and British traditional history deserves a category (before I got my hands on it it was called "Celtic Britain", which is a seriously misleading name). --Nicknack009 17:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies again for stepping on your toes. I think I've removed all of the extraneous Picts. For the Asclepiodotus article, I recall some reliablish source mentioning that the supposed remains of the decapitated Romans had been found. If I run across it again, I'll slap a note on the talk page. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted articles (Judge Dredd Related)

Why are you deleting them --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 13:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Judge Dredd. I'm not deleting anything - I don't have the authority - but there are a number of Dredd-related articles that are completely trivial (what is the point of, for example, Monkey (Judge Dredd), a one line article about a villain from a one-off story?) , and I think they should be deleted. If you don't agree, put your point of view on the relevant talk pages and defend the articles you think are important enough to keep. --Nicknack009 13:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

George Best 'vandal'

Hi! I'm trying to extract the best from the contributor of the 'human rights' paragraph, check out his discussion page. I think he'll continue to add this paragraph forever unless we use kid gloves and help make the addition more NPOV. Anyway, just a thought, let me know what you think. Budgiekiller 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have my doubts that anyone who is so vehement that an afternoon's inconvenience consititutes a violation of human rights is capable of listening to reason, but best of luck. --Nicknack009 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, agreed, but you can but try, eh? Thanks for your understanding! Budgiekiller 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ariovistus et al

Hello knick-knack. I traced you here from your presence in the article. I'm sorry you are so disillusioned. If it is any help, let me say this. Many times I have picked up an encyclopedia in disgust at Wikipedia to find out "the truth". Did I find it? Well, yes and no. In most cases the encyclopedia is not one whit more accurate than Wikipedia. What this has that they do not is all the interlinks and also the latest if any exists and is being divulged. I don't really think you are going to do better in books either. Let's face it, there is no perfection or perfect understanding. Now, there are some professional works that are of outstanding quality such as the American Heritage Dictionary. But, there are some outstanding Wikipedia articles also. Check out Grimm's Law after it was fixed up. Wikipedia makes a big deal of getting references. Big deal, the references often aren't any better than the article, as you point out. However, it is not our fault. Human beings just cannot and never will know everything. You do the best you can to take an objective view and hope or pray for inspiration. So, don't be too hard on yourself, as you are us and we are you. It's a matter of balance I think.

On the Ariovistus article, I made some changes and some comments but I have to get some sleep too. I can't do it all at once. I'll be working on it however. After that I will be leaving it for other articles so if you want changes then you will have to do it.

By the way have you noticed that the other Internet sites on Ariovistus are so inaccurate that one wonders if they have actually read Caesar? So, since I am on this subject, I felt it was time to expand it a little.

I like Perseus too but you know sometimes you can't even get the results of your searches and as far as Smith goes, forget it. It doesn't put you anywhere near the right location and it might take 5 minutes to make a single move. Other sites have Smith too.

On Ariovistus, do you support the "Aryan" idea? Because if you do I think we will have to reach a compromise to present both views. I'm coming from a tradition that throws Aryan right out the window, so if you are trying to keep it, it might be best to identify yourself as that. I would say, in that case, this would be an example of a serious Wikipedia ideological divide.

On the linguistic references, there is nothing unusual there or anything original of mine. I'm not sure what you mean there. I thought I did give some references to be had for only a click. Didn't you like those? Well, maybe I can find more. If you have another point of view, by the way, why don't you present it? I try never to get into a yes-it-is-no-it-ain't argument but just present all the views anyone cares to read as different views. The professionals only present the view they think is right, but I'm happy with the many view idea with discussion. I got to go now.Dave 04:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. No, I'm not advocating the "Aryan" idea - in fact, I'd never heard of it before. I've no problem with the article dealing with it - in fact I'm glad it does, as it means I've learned something new - I just think it gives it too much prominence. References for the etymology - just looking for some currently accepted authority for the proposed roots. If you look at the article on Boudica, for example, the section on her name cites an article by Kenneth Jackson, a recognised authority on Celtic linguistics, for the interpretation, and a couple of other sources for attested variations of the name. Your references may be standard, but I don't know what the standards are in this area.

I know what you mean about websites written by people who haven't read the sources. I come to Caesar and Tacitus via an interest in early Britain and Ireland, hence the Celts, and the amount of stuff written about Celtic matters based on no knowledge whatsoever is depressing.

Perseus is good if you already know chapter and verse of what you're looking for, which is where Smith comes in. There's a much better, more easily searchable version of Smith at The Ancient Library. The only place Perseus really falls down on as far as texts I'm interested in are concerned is Caesar's Civil War. The chapter divisions in the English translation they have don't match the Latin text, which makes it very hard to find the chapter you need, and while there are other translations online I can't find one that's linkable by chapter. I'm in the process of making one myself at Wikisource. --Nicknack009 08:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cymric

Hey Nicknack, I see you've become acquainted with our Wilson and Blackett-reading friend. I considered leaving a civility warning on his talk page, but that may just provoke him. I was hoping he'd just go away. Well, let me know if you need anything, and happy editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

He's a troll. I'm not rising to it. --Nicknack009 00:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caratacus. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC).

Roman Caste system

Begging pardon, but could you please explain me, or refer me to a good text about that matter? So far as I know, in ancient Rome, only members of the patrician classes, senatorial and equestrian families ever got elected to office; plebeians without the land and fortune to qualify as equites were clientes to the wealthy. Now, I don't know what the status of the Antonii was before the time of M Antonius Orator, but even if he was an homo novus, the gens after him would have been coopted into the aristocracy. So, even assuming the gens had been plebeian until the times of his grandfather, which is not certain (or do you have sources on that subject?), Marc Anthony himself would still have been an aristocrat by birth. Now, if I just spouted nonsense, will you please show me the error of my ways? And yes, I've seen your bit in talk : egeria, but really don't catch the difference between a noble and a patrician, as the descendants of homo novi were inducted into the senatorial class. --Svartalf 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best to explain. H. H. Scullard's From the Gracchi to Nero is I think the standard textbook on late Republican/early Imperial Rome, and goes into this in some detail. But basically, "patrician" is not equivalent to "ruling class" or "aristocracy". The distinction between patrician and plebeian was rigid - either you could trace your ancestry to the founders of Rome, or you couldn't. Membership of the ruling class was a bit more flexible.

A novus homo was a plebiean who achieved the office of consul. He and his descendents became nobiles (nobles) and part of the Roman ruling class, but did not become patricians - they remained plebeian. A patrician could lose all his property and be struck off the roll of the senate, but he didn't become plebeian - he remained patrician. The distinction was mainly a matter of prestige. There were some priesthoods that were open only to patricians, and the office of tribune of the plebs was open only to plebeians, but for all other offices, if you could afford the expense (and it was very expensive) you were eligible. So at any one time the Roman ruling class would be made up of a mixture of patricians, like the Julii, and plebeian nobles, like the Antonii. So Mark Antony was an "aristocrat by birth" because he was born into a noble family. But he was still a plebeian, or he couldn't have been tribune of the plebs. When Clodius, who was a patrician by birth, wanted to be tribune of the plebs, he had to be adopted into a plebeian family, but he remained a member of the ruling class.

At the same time, there was an entirely separate class division based on the census. This was originally to determine military service based on what equipment you could afford. Which of these classes you were in was purely dependent on how much property you owned. The very top were the senatorial class. If a family met the property qualification for senatorial status then the head of the family became a senator, and his sons would be well-placed to run for office. The next rank down were the equites, then there were four more ranks of propertied citizens, and finally the proletarii who were free citizens but had no property at all, and before Marius's reforms could not serve in the army. These classes made up Rome's complicated "electoral college" system. To vote, you were enrolled in a "century" based on what census class you belonged to. The higher classes had more centuries, each with fewer members. The proletarii were all enrolled in one century. To win an election you had to get a majority of the centuries, not a majority of the voters, so the higher class you were in, the more your vote counted. The centuries of the top classes also voted first, and voting stopped as soon as a majority of centuries had been reached, so if you were at the bottom you often didn't get to vote at all.

I hope this all makes sense. --Nicknack009 00:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Great sense, thanks. --Svartalf 10:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Constantius Chlorus article

Nicknack, I partially reverted your edit to CC article. The succession box in the middle of the article looks really ugly. Best regards.--Kwame Nkrumah 18:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes look ugly generally, but I wanted to keep the history separate from the legends. I've added a nicer Roman emperor infobox - have a look and see if you prefer that. --Nicknack009 10:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your will of keeping history and legend apart, and agree with you. However I would like to underline that the infobox and the succession box have different pourposes: the infobox is a summary of most important informations about the emperor, and is therefore put to the top right, while the succession box is a navigational aid, and is put below any other text.--Kwame Nkrumah 11:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caratacus

I'm chipping in as a mediator. IF you agree with me working on the case, please drop a note stating so on my talk page. -- Drini 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

BC / BCE

I'm curious, you've locked Julius Ceasar for editing, over the BC/BCE debate - do you have a personal preference? My reason for asking is that I find it odd in an Encyclopedia context that this is not standardised; nearly all academic formats elsewhere are using BCE. I see on pages you've edited that AD/BC is used. MarkThomas 15:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I do have a (mild) preference for BC/AD, largely because it's familiar - for example, my father writes for and has even edited academic (medical) journals, hardly an uneducated man, but he had never heard of BCE/CE until I asked him his opinion on it earlier this year, so unless/until BCE/CE become more established I figure in an encyclopedia for the general reader BC/AD are better - but also because BCE/CE are really no less Christian and no more "common" than BC/AD, so even as a committed secularist I don't buy the secular argument. Wikipedia policy is that both are acceptable, but that neither should be changed without good reason, and I think it's the height of bad manners for an anonymous user to persistently and unilaterally reverse an established consensus as has been happening on Julius Caesar. I only asked for the article to be semi-protected, so it's not locked for editing if you have a username (I'd prefer it if anonymous editing was stopped altogether, because most vandalism comes from anonymous IP numbers that are usually shared with non-vandals). --Nicknack009 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

need refs to giants

Dear Nicknack, Thanks so much for the Irish Mythology. Really really really do appreicate it. Have collected some Irish Mythology books over the years for my own research. Am interested in giants. Would appreciate a discussion, private for now simply because i know so little about it and dont want to show everyone my ignorance. mlhooten@gmail.com. If you email me, I will respect your inbox. No more than one per week or one per month if you want. But will discuss it here if you wish. thankyou mlhooten michael.hooten.name.

Boudica article

Hello,

Regarding the Category I added (Suicides by sharp instrument): The text states "The song suggests that Boudiccea may have committed suicide by falling on her sword." What do you see as the problem with including the Category? -- Michael David 23:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Tacitus says she poisoned herself, Dio says she died of an illness. These are the only historical sources. A 2003 song by Faith and the Muse is not a historical source. --Nicknack009 22:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Romans in the Mendips

Hi, Can I ask for some help as you seem to know a lot about Roman Britain? I've created a page about Charterhouse, Somerset largely based around the roman mines & fort on the site, but I'm sure I've got loads of it wrong as I have very little knowledge of the area. The trigger for doing this was finding the document Mendip Hills An Archaeological Survey of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which has also prompted me to add info on prehistoric & roman settlements (& forts etc) to lots of the sites in the Mendip Hills (which are listed on the template at the bottom of the pages) or see today's entries on my contributions [[1]]. If there is anyone else who might be able to help me get this lot right could you let me know their usernames so that I can ask for help as I feel out of my depth with this lot. Thanks in advance.— Rod ^talk 19:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

An Morrígan

Tapadh Leibh for all your hard work referencing and cleaning up the article! I appreciate all the time and effort it took to do that. Slàn --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Alan Moore yet again.

Great editing on Moore page. Count on my support for more improvements. (pun-groan!) I had removed reference to anarchist only because it seems to be applied haphazardly elsewhere on WP, but not fussed you put it back. Probably true but meaning has become dilute. The book covers you removed said little, thus the phrase, 'judging a ...'. I wil read it offline and let you know whatelse I think. His own art layouts have been printed, I wonder if a section of that coud be included. Once again, I think you have made great improvements. Regards Fred.e 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just read it again offline. It is a very good article after your editing. It did read like 'evolution of a serial killer' in places before. Are you aware of round table discussion between Rick Veitch, Moore and Frank MIller. It may be illuminating if you want a copy. Hope you are not deterred from your contributions to Wikipedia, as I gather you may be from above. I am new here but am quickly discovering it to be lacking in a lot ways. It needs 'professional' approaches such as yours with a broader view than fandom. Cheers Fred.e 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the weirdest thing about the article as it stood was how much space it gave to Twilight of the Superheroes, a comic that was never even written. I haven't read the discussion you mention, but if it's available online I'd be interested to read it. I'm not so down on Wikipedia as I used to be - if nothing else, it's good writing practice. --Nicknack009 23:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• At 2000 AD he started by writing one-off Future Shocks and Time Twisters, moving on to series such as Skizz (E.T. as written by Alan Bleasdale, with Jim Baikie), D.R. and Quinch (a sci-fi take on National Lampoon's characters O.C. and Stiggs, with Davis) and The Ballad of Halo Jones (the first series in the comic to be based around a female character, with Ian Gibson).

... coud do with a bit of tweaking, for clarity. A slight change to punctuation? Maybe it is fine. Sorry to bother you with this, I can't easily see how to unravel it. Thanks for your efforts toward this high importance article. I will continue to 'watch' it and improve where I can. Your only error was the prediction that a sound rewrite would not, in effect, protect it. Regards Fred 01:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the sentence, but I think I wrote it, and I sometimes have a tendency to pack a lot of information into as few words as possible, so that it makes sense to me but can be less clear to others. Maybe it needs a little expanding? --Nicknack009 10:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a little ambiguous. Perhaps the artists coud be outside the parentheses. Maybe it is just me. Your ability to pack the sentence with info is why I asked you. Regards Fred 10:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried your suggestion of moving the artists' names outside the brackets. Does that read better? --Nicknack009 11:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think so. I hope you don't mind me bothering you with it. I don't want to make changes without consulting at least one other 'stakeholder'. You have put so much time in. BTW feel free to drop your replies on my talk page. I am a real person despite the metasyntactic variable for a moniker Fred

List of legendary kings of Britain

Thanks for your recent work on List of legendary kings of Britain, looks much better now.

However, I have question: I'm still a bit at a loss where the dates (mentioned after nearly every name in that list) come from? I understood from the previous version of the intro that Geoffrey of Monmouth mentions only three dates in the Historia, and that these are even internally inconsistent. Who filled in all the other dates? If you know, could mention that in the intro (or add that in the "References" of "Bibliography" section, indicating which author(s) is/are the ones that fleshed out the dates)? Tx! --Francis Schonken 12:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've no idea about the dates - It might be best to lose them entirely. My editing here is a work in progress, but I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. --Nicknack009 12:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know whether the other kings inserted here are genuine? They look very doubtful to me -- all the same dates. - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

They have the same dates because they ruled different parts of Britain at the same time - see Historia Regum Britanniae 2.16-17. It's not very clear, and the whole page needs a lot of work. --Nicknack009 19:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Boann

Hey Nick, some major problems have been introduced over at the Boann article. I've made a dent, and flagged it for cleanup, since I might not be able to slog through it soon. The changes were initially reverted, but are back now. Some of the information added may be ok, but some of it is rather problematic in terms of sourcing and accuracy. Other problems are that inherent contradictions and stylistic problems have been introduced. If you don't have a chance to get to it any time soon, I'll do it eventually, but would like another pair of eyes on it. Tapadh Leat, ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoom, zoom! Excellent work on the Boann article! You tarted it up quite nicely with your references and additions, and really enhanced the content. Good work. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can dig out some more references and tart it up some more - it's quite brief at the moment, and there's probably more that can be said. --Nicknack009 22:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, great work! I agree it could use more detail, but this way we can build up gradually from something solid. I'll see about chipping in when my schedule frees up a bit. Slán! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comnios

The article, Comnios, has recently appeared and is likely a weak rendition of your Commius. It is not my field, but you may want to merge; maybe not!. In any case, Happy editing! Stormbay 19:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey

Sorry if I was overzealous, but when I see a list of mythical kings laid out as if they were real kings, rather than being in ONE list in ONE article, I get concerned that someone might see an article about one of them and assume it was an historical character who had some legends added, like Johnny Appleseed or Davy Crockett or Daniel Boone or even George Washington being credited by Parson Weems with legendary deeds and qualities. Some of the early kings are no more historical thanPaul Bunyan or Pecos Bill. One article, something like: "Mythical British Kings listed by Geoffrey of Monmouth" could include a thoughtful analysis of his fiction and what he said based on fact or half truth, and really should replace the present plethora of stubby articles. The link to Geoffrey does not sufficiently caution the reader. Please feel free to take away my disclaimer and add one which is appropriate to each, or to put each in a list in one article. People tend , unfortunately, to place too much credence in what they read in Wikipedia, and to assume some wholly made up king is as historical as Alfred the Great. Inkpaduta 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics

Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

12 Tribes of Israel

Biblical scholors have said the Tuatha De Danaan could have been from the tribe of Dan. It's not "nonsense". Arnie Gov 04:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Only pseudohistorical crackpots believe that. Calling them "scholars" doesn't make them so. --Nicknack009 08:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)