User talk:Benbucksch
Nice, France founding
[edit]Regarding your change of Nice, France being founded "in the 5th century BC" to "around 350BC", I admittedly can't read French at http://www.nice.fr/mairie_nice_558.html
I see "En l’an 300 avant Jésus-Christ", but I'm not sure where 350BC comes in. I see "wohl um 350 v. Chr." on the German Wikipedia entry, but am unsure of its fact's source. I won't give my credit card # for Britannica's free trial. On Encarta, I found "Probably founded by the Greeks as Nicaea around the 5th century bc".
It would help if you'd translate the relevant part of the French government page, and link or quote the Britannica bit. There might be two theories as to when Nicaea was founded, but I haven't that fact from a reliable source yet, except this apparent discrepancy between two reliable sources. I was just going to add a formatted ref for the 350BC fact. Gotyear 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Gotyear, Encyclopedia Britannica states "around 350 BC", German Wikipedia states "4th century, probably around 350 BC", and the official homepage of Nice states 300 BC.
I have the Britannica (full, DVD, 2005). It says, in the beginning of the second paragraph: "Founded by the Phocaeans of Marseille (a colony of Greek mariners) around 350 BC, the city was probably named in honour of a victory (nike in Greek) over a neighbouring colony."
I'd believe the Encyclopedia Britannica more than Microsoft Encarta :). None of them cite their sources of reasons, as far as I can see. I am not a historian, so I don't know what are more credible sources.
FWIW, I wrote "probably around 350 BC".
Hope this is enough. Ben Bucksch 22:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Works for me. I have no opinion on Encarta v. Britannica :), but I'd say at least 2 reliable sources trumps one, with no reasoning as to the apparent discrepancy. I might format the refs you found later, but I'll leave the fact unless I find any concrete evidence to the contrary. Thanks, Ben. Gotyear 12:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The article SystemDOS has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- non-notable software. No applicable coverage found by Google, and the word "systemdos" doesn't even occur in any of the three sources cited in the article.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SystemDOS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SystemDOS until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Rise of the Tomb Raider edits
[edit]Hi Benbucksch,
That Lara has to kill human enemies might be offensive to some, but we don't give out content warnings like the one you added to the article on Rise of the Tomb Raider. I've rephrased the earlier part, and taken out "avoiding combat altogether". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)