| Revision as of 15:48, 7 June 2009 editCatiline63 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,079 edits →Hannibal resolution: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:21, 7 June 2009 edit undoCatiline63 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,079 edits →Hannibal resolutionNext edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| ] complains that I "added a bust of a roman solider as Hannibal" and that "the image in question itself clearly stated that it may not be authentic... but this editor has changed to writing and has added illegitimate "sources" to try to justify it. These so called sources however are not even related to and do not even mention the image of the roman solider, He/she is trying to pass of as Hannibal" (all ''sic''). | ] complains that I "added a bust of a roman solider as Hannibal" and that "the image in question itself clearly stated that it may not be authentic... but this editor has changed to writing and has added illegitimate "sources" to try to justify it. These so called sources however are not even related to and do not even mention the image of the roman solider, He/she is trying to pass of as Hannibal" (all ''sic''). | ||
| The text accompanying the image stated "A Roman marble bust of Hannibal originally found at the ancient city-state of Capua in Italy. This image may not be authentic." Apart from the mention of Capua (though see below, Matyszak), this agrees with the wording of the source (Adrian Goldsworthy (2001) ''Cannae'' p.24): "A bust which may be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him". The Goldsworthy reference has been attached to the image for months, so TH's contention that when reverting her/his edits I "added illegitimate sources... not even related to and do not even mention the image" is false on many levels. They have repeatedly deleted this correctly sourced image despite the fact that each time I restored it I directed their attention toward the citation and directed them toward the discussion page, where |
The text accompanying the image stated "A Roman marble bust of Hannibal originally found at the ancient city-state of Capua in Italy. This image may not be authentic." Apart from the mention of Capua (though see below, Matyszak), this agrees with the wording of the source (Adrian Goldsworthy (2001) ''Cannae'' p.24): "A bust which may be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him". The Goldsworthy reference has been attached to the image for months, so TH's contention that when reverting her/his edits I "added illegitimate sources... not even related to and do not even mention the image" is false on many levels. They have repeatedly deleted this correctly sourced image despite the fact that each time I restored it I directed their attention toward the citation and directed them toward the discussion page, where their doubts could be addressed properly. They have done neither. | ||
| Other sources (4 scholars and the museum which |
Other reputable and published sources (4 scholars, and one refering to the museum which possesses the bust) either agree with Goldsworthy's assessment (''maybe'' not Hannibal) or give that the bust is of Hannibal (see below). Contrary to what TH avers, no source states that the image is not of Hannibal or make the suggestion that the image is that of a Roman (!). TH's opinion is thus OR. | ||
| Adrian Goldsworthy ''The Fall of Carthage'' cover (2000): "Hannibal in later life". | Adrian Goldsworthy ''The Fall of Carthage'' cover (2000): "Hannibal in later life". | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| Brian Todd Carey ''Hannibal's Last Battle: Zama and the Fall of Carthage'' (2007) also uses the image as its cover illustration. | Brian Todd Carey ''Hannibal's Last Battle: Zama and the Fall of Carthage'' (2007) also uses the image as its cover illustration. | ||
| I have passed on this information to TH and have asked her/him to provide sources that support their opinion that the bust "is not authentic and definately not of hannibal (''sic'')". | I have passed on this information to TH (and their sock account (?)) and have asked her/him to provide sources that support their opinion that the bust "is not authentic and definately not of hannibal (''sic'')". | ||
| As I do not want to be seen as possibly continuing an edit war, I would appreciate it if you could restore the image whereupon I could add these further references. | |||
| Apologies for the length of this post, but a lot was in need of clarification. Many thanks for your time and consideration. ] (]) 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC) | Apologies for the length of this post, but a lot was in need of clarification. Many thanks for your time and consideration. ] (]) 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:21, 7 June 2009
|
Welcome to Nja247's talk page! Please click here to leave me a new message. |
Jan - Jun 2007 • Jul - Dec 2007 |
|---|
George Tiller
George Tiller was not vandalized by User:63.116.172.99, as the edit was repeated by User:This flag once was red. Therefore, you protected the article for no reason. D: --168.169.33.40 (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article had received multiple instances of vandalism. That two editors replaced "murder" with "death" doesn't change that. I support Nja247's protection of the article. Cheers, This flag once was reddeeds 12:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
CrossBooks Publishing Page
I'm confused and frustrated. I modeled my page contribution this morning after Xulon Press. I linked internally and externally. What am I missing to get this page publishing and live?
Thanks, Ben. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solutionsonly (talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest looking over WP:NPOV; WP:N and WP:COI. Thank you. Nja 06:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Cuba Florida trees
- Not disagreeing with the final outcome, but I recall that a recent policy change said that you admins have to wait seven days before closing a debate. And before you say it, 3 votes isn't a snowball. Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind, I didn't realize that it's been seven days. My bad. Mandsford (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Unprotection
Hello, can you unproctect Methamphetamine? I'll watch the article. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Nja 08:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I recently requested unprotection for the song Like a Surgeon (Ciara song) on WP:RFPP. However, no one has replied. I was hoping you could help me. The details for it are on WP:RFPP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrEeMaNsHoE (talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Already done by another admin. Nja 08:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Junior Eurovision Dance Contest
Hi. Thanks for closing this. There was a third article, Junior Eurovision Dance Contest 2010, which I added to the nomination during the debate, but which is clearly part of the same hoax and needs to go too. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Missed it and now deleted. Cheers, Nja 11:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hannibal resolution
Please accept my apologies if this is the wrong place to post, but I've never contacted an admin before. For your consideration in this case...
user: TruHeir complains that I "added a bust of a roman solider as Hannibal" and that "the image in question itself clearly stated that it may not be authentic... but this editor has changed to writing and has added illegitimate "sources" to try to justify it. These so called sources however are not even related to and do not even mention the image of the roman solider, He/she is trying to pass of as Hannibal" (all sic).
The text accompanying the image stated "A Roman marble bust of Hannibal originally found at the ancient city-state of Capua in Italy. This image may not be authentic." Apart from the mention of Capua (though see below, Matyszak), this agrees with the wording of the source (Adrian Goldsworthy (2001) Cannae p.24): "A bust which may be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him". The Goldsworthy reference has been attached to the image for months, so TH's contention that when reverting her/his edits I "added illegitimate sources... not even related to and do not even mention the image" is false on many levels. They have repeatedly deleted this correctly sourced image despite the fact that each time I restored it I directed their attention toward the citation and directed them toward the discussion page, where their doubts could be addressed properly. They have done neither.
Other reputable and published sources (4 scholars, and one refering to the museum which possesses the bust) either agree with Goldsworthy's assessment (maybe not Hannibal) or give that the bust is of Hannibal (see below). Contrary to what TH avers, no source states that the image is not of Hannibal or make the suggestion that the image is that of a Roman (!). TH's opinion is thus OR.
Adrian Goldsworthy The Fall of Carthage cover (2000): "Hannibal in later life". Serge Lancel Hannibal cover (1995): "Roman bust of Hannibal. Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Naples". Philip Matyszak Chronicle of the Roman Republic p.95 (2003): "Bust, thought to be of Hannibal, found in Capua". Brian Todd Carey Hannibal's Last Battle: Zama and the Fall of Carthage (2007) also uses the image as its cover illustration.
I have passed on this information to TH (and their sock account (?)) and have asked her/him to provide sources that support their opinion that the bust "is not authentic and definately not of hannibal (sic)".
As I do not want to be seen as possibly continuing an edit war, I would appreciate it if you could restore the image whereupon I could add these further references.
Apologies for the length of this post, but a lot was in need of clarification. Many thanks for your time and consideration. Catiline63 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)