User talk:TakenakaN

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, TakenakaN, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 14:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Aemilianus

Nice work on this article; keep it up! Dppowell (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Delinking dates

Thanks for your message. Currently the Wikipedia standard is not to link dates unless there is some special and valuable reason to link them; in general, an article you write should only link to articles that a reader might feasibly want to go to for more information, and there is almost never a case when readers would want to go to the date articles (the only exceptions are when the article itself is very closely thematically related to that date, for some reason; most articles, however, are not like that). As a rule of thumb, you should link as little as possible, because having a large number of links in an article makes it cluttered and difficult to read. For more information, you may want to read WP:OVERLINK, which has a lot of good tips about this. You can also see WP:UNLINKDATES for the official policy on date linking; that policy is currently under discussion at the talk page (it looks like someone started a thread about an hour ago proposing that we get rid of the rule, but people have overwhelmingly been opposing that proposal—in other words, overwhelmingly supporting the rule that we should delink dates). Happy editing. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Lucius Aurelius Avianius Symmachus

On 26 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lucius Aurelius Avianius Symmachus, 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) 08:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Apodemius

On 3 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Apodemius, 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) 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Who made the [[... (Consul ...)|...]] links on List of Roman consuls?

If it was you who put links with the consuls' names and then "(Consul," the year they served, and")," please remove them. They are a cause of many red links on that page. I have fixed a lot of them, but not all of them, so if you are the one who did make those links, please erase everything of those links but what is between "|" and "]]." This will get rid of the links, but not the text. Thank you. BlueCaper (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean. Could you please present an example? --TakenakaN (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not checking more deeply to discover that Iohannes did indeed point back to John. But I still have a problem with the entries. Disambiguation pages are primarily (some would say exclusively) for navigation to more in depth articles that provide information. That would usually means there should be an article on the target. Minimally there should be a blue link on the dab page line. As it stands, its unclear what use the entries have, especially since many reader will not know what a consul is. I will find an appropriate blue link for those entries (please correct if you know of a more appropriate one) and leave the redlink (please remove the links if you don't believe we will have articles for the two soon). (John User:Jwy talk) 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mavortius

He had a son, with issue, according to Christian Settipani. Just that. Dgarq (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just, I've seen it in one once and I added it here too. Just for information. Dgarq (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's to provide for an elucidative information about the basis of the continuing of the lineages. Dgarq (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to him but to him and others in sequence. Dgarq (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

But it's part of him, so to say. He's part of the intertwine. Dgarq (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think an Administrator would be better to break the tie. Either way, since I don't want to write something to be deleted, I won't add it again. Dgarq (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but perhaps it won't do anything. Dgarq (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job

Nice work on the editing and articles. You are doing a great job. Why don't you create a user page that way everyone can know a little about who they are talking to. If you need any help, SADADS (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Vettius Agorius Praetextatus

On December 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, 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) 03:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Varanes (consul 410)

For the most part the article looks great, but the sentence about "his father was well-known" needs a little more explanation. Who was his father, why was he well-known? I would tag this in the article, but I'm still a little inexperienced at that! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Flavius

If, in this case, Flavius is being used as a praenomen then I understand. I'll move it back. Cheers, SGGH ^ping! 15:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Descent

Well, put simply, "descent", when in the meaning of "common origin", is in my experience normally not put in the plural, even when referring to many people. For instance, "people of European origin" = "people of European descent/ancestry", where, since the "European descent" is a common single factor, it does not need plural. I have occasionally seen the plural form used, but never in books or other publications where one would expect a good use of English. But if it were a phrase like "people of various origins", then you would use "people of various descents/ancestries", since we are talking about different origins/descents/ancestries. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Flavius

Anicius Petronius Maximus: his son, father, grandfather, etc, and all his relatives were Anicius because they belonged to the Gens Anicia. Ricimer: the Romanized Barbarians added Flavius to their names. See also http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=bernd-jansen&id=I32223 (transciption from Christian Settipani, etc). Glycerius: I assumed it appeared on the Prosopography and in coins. Julius Nepos: the same. Dgarq (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Bernd Josef Jansen is only a transcription of the source. The actual source is Continuité gentilice et continuité sénatoriale dans les familles sénatoriales romaines à l'époque impériale, 2000 Anicius is not original research: it's simply the completion of the logical missing name. And, are you sure the Prosopography doesn't give him the name Flavius too? Dgarq (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have the book, so I can't mention a page properly. But I know it's there. Dgarq (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mutilating unnecessarily? Just because of this? Deleting because of not having the source at hand instead of preserving the information even with any kind of note is just destructive. Dgarq (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What?? That's the same stupid thing I was trying to deny! The pointless destruction and loss of data. Well, I guess we're lucky, I've found a source for Anicius: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/romanemperors2.pdf. See why one shouldn't waste information? And another: http://www.archive.org/stream/delphinclassics11valp/delphinclassics11valp_djvu.txt and http://www.archive.org/stream/aniciimanliitor02boetgoog/aniciimanliitor02boetgoog_djvu.txt See also List of Roman Emperors for Petronius Maximus and Olybrius. Dgarq (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In my day, people respected the classics. History doesn't change, "what is done, is done". Apparently, also Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire II.749. Dgarq (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

For Ricimer google for "Roman military leader of Germanic descent, Ricimer (in full, Flavius Ricimer) was the power behind the throne in the Western Empire from 456 until his death" and it's the first reference - I don't have copy and paste on this computer and the adress is too long to be copied. I don't know about Glycerius and Julius Nepos, their coin inscriptions are missing on List of Roman Emperors. Dgarq (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The source isn't google, it appears on google, I've explained that I won't write over 50 characters in order to present a source anyone with half a brain can find on their own with the indications I've provided. Dgarq (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have copy and past in your computer, why don't YOU copy the adress and paste it on wikipedia, instead of trolling things up? What's the need of creating difficulties to people? I've explained why I can't copy it! Dgarq (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Vercondaridubnus

Hi TakenakaN. I see you renamed the article Caius Julius Vercondaridubnus. Could you tell me which source or sources you used? I ask because the major sources used in the article use C. Julius or Caius Julius; if the accuracy or correctness of the praenomen is in question, I prefer internal consistency between article sources and text. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine. I'll add a note to that effect. Haploidavey (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Go read!

Yoy should seriously go read some more pages before pettily trashing other people's work and making them lose time. Words like "after", "circa" and "Floruit", I've seen them abbreviated in many other pages. Don't change it! Dgarq (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry...

But are you now going to follow me around and destroy every single thing I've done, some even almost a year ago? These sources ARE reliable, they're the actual TRANSCRIBED information from THE SOURCE also indicated, for people READ ONLY! Stop trashing or an Administrator will block you, I'm warning you! Dgarq (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why, it's READ ONLY, it's a mere guiding website!... That's why the ACTUAL SOURCE is added next. Both things are complementary, specially for those who don't have the ACTUAL BOOK. That's why it's called JUST A REFERENCE. Dgarq (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the book, it's extremely rare and hard to find, and the author despite knowing that and not making any more money with new editions of it prefers to "hide" it from the world wide web!... Dgarq (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's not a SOURCE, it's a REFERENCE, for the people go and see "Oh, there it is!" Got it? It's role is merely auxiliary. Otherwise I'd have included the page on Sources instead of References. And the only reason I've included the actual book in the References instead of the Sources is because in the whole of the article it generally plays a small importance role, mostly for connection purposes, since the historical part of the book is also based in other purely historical works. Dgarq (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I did understand it's not a SOURCE, YOU didn't understand that I didn't paste a source but a mere external reading instrument. It's not a SOURCE, it's a TRANSCRIPTION of it! Dgarq (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

They're the NAMES of the BOOKS! Settipani has more than one book! What now? You got tired of adding 's and 's?... Dgarq (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to finish this argument: I did not read the books by Christian Settipani except for one, but I've seen them, I don't have to read them all and they're simply the only books of their kind about the issue: any genealogy of this kind is allways provided by his investigations and his sourcing on another previous and less productive authors. Dgarq (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Dagalaiphus Dagalaiphus

What kind of retards have twice the same name? (Unless their parents have both the same last name and people use the last names of both on their country.) It's not a "hunch", it's LOGIC! If you see someone with a repeated name, it's a mistake of whoever copied it! Obviously! Thank you for you logic, Takenaka Takenaka!... I've seen it doubled elsewhere too, you know, and logically I've allways corrected it because it's a mistake! Still about the sources in general, if you have any doubts about the credibility of the author, just see Christian Settipani. Dgarq (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you a retard?

First, you add everywhere, and then you get to an article and remove the same works you so eagerly edited. How logic is thay? Dgarq (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dqarg

Well, initially at least, deal with him as you would with any other user. However if his edit pattern conforms to that of Dqarq, you could ask for administrator intervention (see WP:SOCK). What is more important, during my interaction with Dqarg I have come to strongly suspect that he is indeed a reincarnation of User:G.-M. Cupertino, a banned user. If it is true, then according to WP rules, he should not be editing at all. Now Dqarg has ostensibly retired, so bringing up a WP:SOCK investigation against him now would be pointless, but if there is evidence that the IP is in turn a sockpuppet for Dqarg, then an investigation is more than warranted. Constantine ✍ 14:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet, I was just providing a simple source for a dispute that was disrupting some pages. This is what we get from trying to help! I simply didn't know this dispute is, after all, a pathological case of deleting sources. I'm being dragged to the same vicious circle the Dgarq was, and being punished just for being faithfull to what I believe is the right version of the pages. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Anon: Dgarq redux?

Thanks for the 'heads up' regarding the anonymous IP. I've reverted his stuff based on Sayles' book and have left him a message. Catiline63 (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's curious that in the above section 'Dgarq' is mis-spelled by the first editor, but the Anon gets it correct! Catiline63 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Who is "we"? And either way, disambiguation is about giving a very specific and if possible unique characteristic that distinguishes the subject from all others with the same name. "Longinus, the brother of Emperor Zeno" is far less ambiguous than "Longinus, consul in 486". The first tells you pretty much who he was, if you know who Zeno was, the latter says nothing at all. Constantine ✍ 17:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm, yes, but this was mostly about people who are only notable because they were consuls. Longinus on the other hand is far more notable as Zeno's brother. It is established practice to use the more notable characteristic, rather than the de jure highest position they came to occupy. Vitalian (general) serves as a case in point. Anyway, in this case it is rather trivial, but the point is, if anyone has hear of Longinus, it will not be because of his two consulships, but because he was Zeno's brother and consequently played an important role in is reign. Constantine ✍ 17:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, take a look at WP:ROMANS: "Person that held no titles or public office, or persons whose primary interest to history is his (or her) relationship with another person may require alternative terms for disambiguation (e.g. Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi (usurper), Drusilla (sister of Caligula))". This is the case here. Constantine ✍ 17:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not the prime reason for his notability. When history books speak of him, they say things on the lines of "general/consul Longinus, the brother of Zeno", not simply "Longinus, the twice consul". The latter part is the important distinguishing characteristic, which is why it is included. Being a brother to an emperor is more important than holding a (by then purely honorific) office. Constantine ✍ 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously not. But in retrospect, and since we do not use the consular dating nowadays, that is rather irrelevant. It may have been an honor, but Longinus was not important because he was a consul, he was a consul and important because he was Zeno's brother. It was this fact that raised him to prominence, and it is as "the brother of Zeno" that he is referred to, not as "the twice consul". Even in the PLRE, that is the criterion, when it says that Longinus of Cardala is confused with Longinus 6, "Zeno's brother". That last fact makes him unique, and the characteristic that is used for disambiguation. Constantine ✍ 17:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Attention: "rather irrelevant"... They are not irrelevant, but are less important, and less unique a characteristic. That is why the PLRE uses the familial relationship as a disambiguating factor and not the consulships. Constantine ✍ 17:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It also identifies him as "MVM (East)" etc. These are his titles, as you well know, they are bound to be given there. The important thing is how he is referred to elsewhere and in what context, especially when he needs to be distinguished from other Longinuses. Look, even you use it in the same way when you write at Anastasius I (emperor) "the supporters of Longinus, the brother of Zeno". The brother of Zeno is the prime disambiguating factor. Not "Longinus, the twice consul" or "Longinus, the consul of 486"... It is a matter of common sense... Constantine ✍ 18:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but its is that designation which you and I and most books I've come across use to distinguish him from others. That is his chief claim to fame. Anyhow, the issue is trivial, so I'll stop here. Constantine ✍ 18:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Roman patricians v. Patricii

I'm still confused about what was decided regarding Category:Roman patricians and Category:Patricii. "Roman patricians" should be used for people born into one of the patrician gentes of Republic Rome, is that right? And the other for title-holders? If you can straighten me out on this, leave a note on my talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, agreed. My thinking on this had to do with two things: there is a Category:Ancient Roman plebeians that seems counterpart to Category:Roman patricians. Also, if you search the transliterated Greek form patrikios, there are 66 pages that come up (though Patrikios is a proper noun in a few of these); patrikios is clearly the Imperial title and should go under "Patricii". Now, the problem is that currently there are probably patrikii categorized under Category:Roman patricians. I don't know whether your interest extends to looking at all these and deciding who goes where.

I'm thinking a bit subversively here. Rather than engaging in more discussion, which invites passionate opinion but not always action, you and I might just proceed on this assumption, and announce it later. Would that be too naughty? That is, if you would have time to look over the category pages with an eye on sorting out the Republican/Early Imperial social class from the holders of the title in the later Empire, I would place an explanatory note at the top of each category. I might move a few if they seemed evident (Greek names), but I'm not confident about my knowledge of the subject matter in the later Empire.

I'd also like to say (discreetly) that I have a better understanding now of what you meant about deleting well-sourced information just because it isn't in a standard but sometimes outdated 19th-century reference work. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait. Category:Patricii is empty. Hm. I would tentatively argue that there's quite a difference between an inherited social class and a bestowed title, and that a Greek of the later Empire is simply not a "patrician" in the Republican sense. But maybe there's nothing to be done about it after all at the moment. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're no doubt right. I've been in an impatient, subversive mood lately. I'll just wait and see what happens. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pamprepius

On February 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pamprepius, 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) 12:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Move

You are right. I will notify an admin to perform the necessary shuffling around. For the record, I had no intention to "hide" the history or anything, just to make the move quickly. Sorry. Constantine ✍ 16:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Page for Byzantine-related new articles

Hello TakenakaN! I have created a list for new or recently de-stubbed articles that relate to the Byzantine Empire. I hope that everyone contributing on the subject will add his/her articles there, so that other interested users will be able to find it easily. BTW, I have tried to find all such articles for 2010, but some may have escaped my notice. If you find any missing, please add them yourself. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 13:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Majorian

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Consularia Italica

Hello. In May you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [1]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand. --TakenakaN (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Reverting a legitimate edit

Hello TakenakaN, I've replied here. Regards, Paul August ☎ 12:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Diptych

Well, you asked for a ref as to where he is named "Theodosius Junior". That is one such occasion. Constantine ✍ 16:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I misread this as "context of the diptych"... Be right back... Constantine ✍ 16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a CIL entry for this, the reference I used comes from here. In Greek he was certainly named "Theodosius the Younger" at least in the Chronicon Paschale, and several early modern authors did the same in English. Barring a better source, I don't have an objection to removing the "iunior" from the Latin form. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Opportunity to comment on Batavia

There is a discussion starting up at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation), that may be of interest to you. The subject is technically a page move discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is to decide where Batavia should redirect. Until earlier today, Batavia redirected to History of Jakarta, but during this discussion, it is redirecting to Batavia (disambiguation). Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks for your help. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are receiving this because you are one of the principal editors of one of the articles that is linked to Batavia (disambiguation). This notice is being posted to all of the top three editors of each of these articles (in terms of total edits), with the following exceptions:

• editors who are blocked
• anonymous IP editors
• editors who, despite ranking in the top three of edits to an article, have only a single edit to said article

This is an attempt to be a neutrally-phrased posting in keeping with the principles of WP:CANVASS. If you find anything in the wording or the manner posted to be a violation of that guideline, please notify me at my talk page.

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) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)