![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
An anonymous user, going by the IP number 70.90.59.74, has now twice reverted this article to an earlier inferior version. All the additions I have made are sourced, and of the bits I have removed, the sentennce 'The root "ruman" in the name D(ruman)argh shows a clear reference to the Romans' is embarrassingly wrong; the extensive quote from a blog has been removed as an innapropriate source for such a quotation; and the reference to Tuathal Techtmar as a historical figure, cited to Vittorio di Martino's Roman Ireland has been removed because Tuathal is not historical, and di Martino does not say he is. The rest of my alterations are just reorganisation so, for example, you don't have two separate paragraphs about Agricola separated by unrelated paragraphs. -- Nicknack009 ( talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I find strange that user Nicknack009 pinpoints only his opinion about the "ruman" root. In the italian edition of the book of Di Martino there is clearly stated this possibility in the introduction. And because wikipedia is not based on POV of anyone, but on all the points of view, I am reverting it. I wonder even if there it is the usual problem of celtic nationalism in the points of view of Nicknack009, but I sincerely hope to be mistaken. Anyway the quotations in wikipedia even if related to a blog can be maintained if the source is clearly written. So, I am reverting it too. If this problem of erasing and erasing references keeps going on, I will ask for an arbitration, OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.162.17 ( talk) 20:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW: Why only the Italian edition of the book must be wrong about "ruman", while the English is right? It smells a bit to me of "usual" nationalism, don't you agree? And why you erase the reference to Cashiel (...another name from latin....or even here I am wrong....), that could have been originated from Agricola's possible explorative/punitive expedition? I sincerely believe that we need an arbitration here.-- Romandrumanagh ( talk) 00:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
From wikipeda WP:V
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.
The word "largely" has not the same meaning of "always".-- Romandrumanagh ( talk) 02:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit offended by this accusation of gaming the system: largely is not always, in plain english. Change then what is written in the wiki rules, so a person like me will not fall in misunderstanding. Quite simple, isn't it?
Julius Caesar received submission from the tribe living in the north islands of Scotland. He wrote the names of the main tribes in Britannia in his book De Bello Gallico. Claudius invaded Britannia some years later and sent his roman navy to sail around Britannia. Agricola entered Caledonia in 82 and knew the names of all the tribes of northern Britannia, as reported by Marinus Of Tyre and other authors of roman gazetteers. Indeed, after one century of conquest the Romans in 82 knew perfectly all the people in the great island that they were invading and assimilating to their empire. It is impossible the contrary, even because there were commercial contacts with all these tribes since Caesar times. May I know from user Nicknack009 where you get the information that Agricola may have not know the tribes of Caledonia? You defiantly wrote may have been tribes in the far north of Britain that were not yet known: Sources please. I have given mine: Marinus of Tyre (and roman gazetteers that I can post even in latin), and yours?
PS: I am going to revert your unsourced erase. Please, if you want to cancel again, do it after you post your sources and I will accept what you do. I believe this is the way wikipedia works. -- Romandrumanagh ( talk) 03:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
From what you have just written I understand that you, nicknack009, lack real knowledge about Caesar De bello gallico expedition to Britain. Claudius ordered a travel around Britannia (Nero probably even) and the works of Marinus are not lost, as all scholars know (Ptolomeus even used his works for his "Geography"). And where are your sources, celtic nationalist named Nicknack009? The reality is that you call INFERIOR (it sounds racist, isn't?) my posts from your first moment in this talk page, but You have no sources at all! Consequently, as a form of protest, I RETIRE FROM WIKIPEDIA!-- Romandrumanagh ( talk) 17:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to the texts by Barry Raftery and Gabriel Cooney that are quoted in the article? I suspect that the reference is misleading, as I remember reading Raftery's book and know for a fact (personal communication) that neither of the two believes there to have been a Roman invasion of Ireland, nor, consequently, that Drumanagh was a (military) bridgehead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.237.37 ( talk) 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
All online Johnbod ( talk) 02:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Perhaps same author as the 2017 report for the council? Johnbod ( talk) 02:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
An anonymous user, going by the IP number 70.90.59.74, has now twice reverted this article to an earlier inferior version. All the additions I have made are sourced, and of the bits I have removed, the sentennce 'The root "ruman" in the name D(ruman)argh shows a clear reference to the Romans' is embarrassingly wrong; the extensive quote from a blog has been removed as an innapropriate source for such a quotation; and the reference to Tuathal Techtmar as a historical figure, cited to Vittorio di Martino's Roman Ireland has been removed because Tuathal is not historical, and di Martino does not say he is. The rest of my alterations are just reorganisation so, for example, you don't have two separate paragraphs about Agricola separated by unrelated paragraphs. -- Nicknack009 ( talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I find strange that user Nicknack009 pinpoints only his opinion about the "ruman" root. In the italian edition of the book of Di Martino there is clearly stated this possibility in the introduction. And because wikipedia is not based on POV of anyone, but on all the points of view, I am reverting it. I wonder even if there it is the usual problem of celtic nationalism in the points of view of Nicknack009, but I sincerely hope to be mistaken. Anyway the quotations in wikipedia even if related to a blog can be maintained if the source is clearly written. So, I am reverting it too. If this problem of erasing and erasing references keeps going on, I will ask for an arbitration, OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.162.17 ( talk) 20:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW: Why only the Italian edition of the book must be wrong about "ruman", while the English is right? It smells a bit to me of "usual" nationalism, don't you agree? And why you erase the reference to Cashiel (...another name from latin....or even here I am wrong....), that could have been originated from Agricola's possible explorative/punitive expedition? I sincerely believe that we need an arbitration here.-- Romandrumanagh ( talk) 00:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
From wikipeda WP:V
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.
The word "largely" has not the same meaning of "always".-- Romandrumanagh ( talk) 02:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit offended by this accusation of gaming the system: largely is not always, in plain english. Change then what is written in the wiki rules, so a person like me will not fall in misunderstanding. Quite simple, isn't it?
Julius Caesar received submission from the tribe living in the north islands of Scotland. He wrote the names of the main tribes in Britannia in his book De Bello Gallico. Claudius invaded Britannia some years later and sent his roman navy to sail around Britannia. Agricola entered Caledonia in 82 and knew the names of all the tribes of northern Britannia, as reported by Marinus Of Tyre and other authors of roman gazetteers. Indeed, after one century of conquest the Romans in 82 knew perfectly all the people in the great island that they were invading and assimilating to their empire. It is impossible the contrary, even because there were commercial contacts with all these tribes since Caesar times. May I know from user Nicknack009 where you get the information that Agricola may have not know the tribes of Caledonia? You defiantly wrote may have been tribes in the far north of Britain that were not yet known: Sources please. I have given mine: Marinus of Tyre (and roman gazetteers that I can post even in latin), and yours?
PS: I am going to revert your unsourced erase. Please, if you want to cancel again, do it after you post your sources and I will accept what you do. I believe this is the way wikipedia works. -- Romandrumanagh ( talk) 03:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
From what you have just written I understand that you, nicknack009, lack real knowledge about Caesar De bello gallico expedition to Britain. Claudius ordered a travel around Britannia (Nero probably even) and the works of Marinus are not lost, as all scholars know (Ptolomeus even used his works for his "Geography"). And where are your sources, celtic nationalist named Nicknack009? The reality is that you call INFERIOR (it sounds racist, isn't?) my posts from your first moment in this talk page, but You have no sources at all! Consequently, as a form of protest, I RETIRE FROM WIKIPEDIA!-- Romandrumanagh ( talk) 17:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to the texts by Barry Raftery and Gabriel Cooney that are quoted in the article? I suspect that the reference is misleading, as I remember reading Raftery's book and know for a fact (personal communication) that neither of the two believes there to have been a Roman invasion of Ireland, nor, consequently, that Drumanagh was a (military) bridgehead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.237.37 ( talk) 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
All online Johnbod ( talk) 02:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Perhaps same author as the 2017 report for the council? Johnbod ( talk) 02:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)