User talk:Gaius Octavius Princeps

236:, because Curry is a recognised expert in the field, and because she's written one of the most recent books on the subject. Very recently (i.e. since I got hold of a copy of Mortimer's book) I have started supporting his figures, as he has had an opportunity to assess Curry's work, and has come down much closer to her version than to Barker's. You keep stating that Curry is not representative of "the vast majority of historians", but which historians do you mean, exactly? The only one I am aware of who has considered Curry's research in detail, at book length, is Mortimer. He finds her guilty of exaggeration of a few hundreds for the English, and a few thousands for the French, which is where we get figures of eight to nine thousand for the English and twelve to fifteen thousand for the French (not 9,000 and 12,000, as Curry has it). You keep saying that I support Curry's figures, but I don't. As I've tried to say several times, I support Mortimer's figures, as the only historian to have written a book length work which critically assesses Curry's figures. 160:

research by someone who's had a chance to evaluate what Curry has done, and broadly supports her conclusions. You've made the "Numbers" section harder to read with little justification that I can see other than to give the impression that Curry is against all other historians, when in fact the majority of recent work I've seen has been closer to her position than Barker's. To be honest I'm quite annoyed that you've not made any entry on the talk page, even after I specifically asked you to a month ago. In the meantime I'm reverting the Barker numbers to use Mortimer's numbers. Note,

1807:. There's a new bonus prize of $ 200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! 330:

Isandlwana. Based on most sources, Zulu gunfire is barely mentioned beyond occassional sniping. The British military establishment has all sorts of weaponry available that is not documented at this battle from gatling guns to dreadnoughts and they are not mentioned - so too thousands of Zulu guns.World history source is clear that the Zulus are equipped with spears and rifle are anecdotal and incidental.Please discuss on article discussion page and await consensus before revert.

1694:. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like 1731: 370:

to balance the by Elkins mentioning British atrocities. I'm going through sourcing the parts which haven't been, expanding certain sections, and will sort out the random collection of sections which the other editor Sh33pl0re seems to have given up finishing. I'll try and go through and rescue other bits you may have added but which wer lost by my reversion too. Suggestions and help welcome!

437:(I assume you were basing that number from memory of old information). Since the 'top critics' score doesn't show any particular disconnect between 'top critics' and 'all critics', I don't think it's necessary to include and I've removed it. Just letting you know. I won't protest further if you feel strongly and want to add it, but I don't think it's necessary. Regards, 1702:, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- 998: 369:

Glad to see someone who is keen to stop pro-Mau Mau loons from hijacking the MM article! I reverted it way back to get rid of the terrible edits made by that Mau Mau lover, so I might have lost some of your additions. I saw your Ogot quote in the discussion section, so I've slapped it in a quote box

309:

Most of your edits to this article are quite helpful however the changes made to the lede paragraphs are not supported by the refs you gave and are found in none of the major histories of the battle or eyewitness accounts. Please do not revert to 'thousands of rifles' or 'checked invasion' until you

239:

If there were lots of other historians who had in the last four years said that Curry's figures were rubbish, even outside of a book, I would be more cautious. However I'm only aware of a short note in Barker (written without any research, although she makes valid points), and Rogers, in a newspaper

207:

Looking at the edit history of the article, you have been pushing curry as a definitive guide to numbers involved for quite a long time. Her views are not supported by the vast majority of historians, as I'm sure you are aware, therefore the majority view (of a large French force V's a small English

182:

page so others can contribute, but we can have it here or on my talk page if you prefer. We're not going to get anywhere if we keep reverting each other's edits. I'm happy to be persuaded that Curry is in a tiny minority, but you have so far offered no evidence of this, and until you do, I will keep

141:

page while a couple of us who have it on our watch page were away. As I imagine you've realised, the NY Times piece simply repeated the controversy, there was nothing new here (and even that piece quotes an American historian who disagrees with Curry). Occasionally Curry's theory gets another run in

25:

page runs "Brutus also later used the name officially on at least one occasion after Caesar's death though it appears this was to honour his adoptive father as he also issued coins in his original name at this time". This last assertion is refed with a link to the famous EID MAR coin. The trouble

692:

A more balanced entry would be: "Another brief letter from General Sir Robert Montgomery to Captain Hodson, the conqueror of Delhi demonstrates how some in the British military high command approved of the execution of the King and his sons: "All honour to you for catching the king and slaying his

1356:

Hallo, thanks for correcting a fact in Mr. Baker. The article is pretty ropy at the moment - most of it is a coatrack for the B. rifle, and that section is totally uncited. Since you seen to be rather well informed on the matter, could you possibly add a ref or two to the section? (And even a few

329:

Ian Knight is mostly alone in this, the minority viewm and British Battles website is not a source and follows Knight. Knight does not document the capture of thousands of firearms after the war or during the battle, nor does anyone else, but even if they have them they don't appear to be used at

696:

Or if it read something like this: "A letter from General Sir Robert Montgomery congratulated Captain Hodson, the conqueror of Delhi, saying; "All honour to you for catching the king and slaying his sons. I hope you will bag many more!"... Then this could then be folded into the British reaction

159:

Could you please contribute to a discussion on the talk page of Battle of Agincourt? You've reverted my edits on the numbers to use Barker; Barker's numbers are probably even more wrong than Curry. You don't seem to have taken in that I've based my recent edits on Mortimer, i.e. the most recent

569:

I'm seeing the exact same "all critics" page. My best guess as to why we're seeing such differences in 'top critic' scores would be that Rotten Tomatoes uses your IP address to detect what country you're in and loads the scores for that nation or region. If you scroll down, you can see the top

280:

My problem is your unsupported claims that "the vast majority" of historians support Barker's figures, which are now given the most prominent position in the Info box. The Info box is currently a mess; I'm not aware of any other which gives the figures as an "Or", as if it's a binary position,

685:

It said "Another brief letter from General Sir Robert Montgomery to Captain Hodson, the conqueror of Delhi exposes how the British military high command approved of the cold blooded massacre of Delhiites: "All honour to you for catching the king and slaying his sons. I hope you will bag many

669:

This is regarding your recent edits to "Aftermath". I was curious to know the reason you deleted the references to Hodson. Your edit summary also said pov. Nothing seemed really pov to me. Its quite a well-referenced article and has been cleaned up quite a bit. Would you care to elaborate?

227:

you for removing the Curry bias after the Glanz article appeared. I supported the Barker figures until very recently, as less contentious than Curry, even though I thought the methodology to produce the 36,000 figure was dubious. I have consistently supported the inclusion of a

1743:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

101: 1698:. For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like 1226:

to GA status? I think it came fairly close back in Feb. Perhaps with a little more effort it could be improved to meet the requirements of the reviewer, if resubmitted for a GAR. I'd take no offence if you don't wish to. Cheers,

203:

What exactly would you prefer? Do you want an article solely based on Curries work? The most recent edit I made simply toned down the curry centric slant of the article, her numbers are still included as are her arguments.

1321:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

700:

Both retain the original source without emotive language and pov. As it was I was unsure where the source for this came from, if you can find it I would not argue against it's re-inclusion into the article, minus the

142:

the newspapers, this is the third time that I recall. The biggest problem with it (as touched on in the Times piece) is whether the surviving administrative records are an accurate reflection of who was at the battle.

1771: 746:

and a reason was given. The sentence already states: "...British support of American Indian tribes against American expansion...." There is no need to repeat the point about American expansion into the Northwest.

1531:. 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 475:

The Eagle has a 70% approval rating on it representing a positive reaction from the top critics. This is worth including in my opinion. I will re-add it for now, as I presume you have did not see the 70%

1755:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 723:

Hello, since you were the first person to complain about the reverts of BCE/CE on the spartacus article, I'd appreciate your return to the discussion to help with the origins in the edit warring.

927: 26:

is, the EID MAR coin bears only BRVT IMP, so this means nothing either way. Note also that Cicero refers to Brutus by his adoptive name in a couple of his letters. Thus "Caepio Brutus" in

923: 289:

36,000. If we must present them like this, they should be presented as a range, e.g. "modern historians' estimates range from ~12,000 (ref) to ~36,000 (ref). See Numbers at Agincourt." --

183:

reverting. I have never got into a revert edit war with anyone, in years of active editing on Knowledge (XXG). But you are making it very difficult if you won't engage in a discussion. --

1143:

has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Golden Dawn (Greece)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation.

590:

As to the critics being regional, I'm guessing mine are similar to yours as I have the likes of Ebert, NY Times, LA Times as well as British ones like Empire and The Daily Telegraph.

265:

Curry/Mortimer's numbers are noted in the article alongside the traditional view that the French heavily outnumbered the English with refs. I don't understand what your complaint is.

1804: 1797: 1699: 472:

wikipedia entry "In addition, major film reviewers like Roger Ebert, Desson Thomson, Stephen Hunter, and Lisa Schwarzbaum (etc), are listed in a sub-listing called 'Top Critics'".

1344: 223:

What are you talking about? I still don't think you understand what my position is, although I've tried on several occasions to explain it. See further up this page for where I

1687: 1390:. The problem is that at that time there were two different editions of the book in use as citations. Please could you add the year to the short citation which you added. -- 1409:

Hi, could you please add a full description of the book you recently referenced in the Battle of Waterloo article to the reference section at the bottom of the page. Thanks

1044: 1147:

is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the

1040: 1097: 832: 1266: 1093: 828: 1709: 1630: 1585: 1455: 1276: 1262: 1107: 1054: 883: 842: 789: 413:

OK! Off to work now, I've made what alterations I'm going to for today, so feel to check it over, change it about or whatever. Happy Christmas to you too =D

1223: 955: 899: 1156: 1193:

Thanks for your work in getting this asinine label removed from the party. So many to choose from, and they insist on something like that. Cheers.

951: 895: 1695: 742:

You added the statement about US expansion into the Northwest and stated that it was previously deleted without reason. It was previously deleted

1152: 1148: 145:

We've started a couple of discussions on the talk page about the changes which have been made; would you be able to contribute? Thanks, merlin --

384:

Hey! Saw your reversion. OK, rather than revert to mine and then re-add what you did, I'll keep yours stuff and add in mine, if that make sense!

1626: 1581: 1451: 1272: 1103: 1050: 919: 879: 838: 785: 779: 570:

critics' reviews. The top critics I'm all seeing are from U.S. and Canadian sources. Could you take a look to see if this theory is correct?

1785: 1556: 1326: 775: 1200: 1444:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

1163:

Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 September 2012.

724: 1691: 1478: 1009: 1178: 1140: 1781: 1552: 178:

This is the fourth time I've asked you to contribute to a discussion on the numbers at Agincourt. I'd prefer to have it on the

1764: 1269:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1100:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1047:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 835:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 782:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1623:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1578:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1448:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 876:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 240:

article. His figures for the French (where he includes a "gros valet" per man-at-arms) are arguably the same as Mortimer's.

704: 632: 599: 548: 477: 400: 266: 209: 49: 1543:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1776: 1703: 1548: 1032: 1445: 873: 617:

Sorry about that, I had completely misunderstood what you had done and reverted it. My apologies, happy editing. :)

1615:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1570:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1253:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1616: 1387: 1379: 1372: 468:'Top Critics' only takes the aggregate of those critics considered to be at the top of their field. To quote the 434: 179: 124: 87: 1752: 1340: 1336: 1204: 1362: 1085: 938: 820: 433:

You added that 70% of Rotten Tomatoes 'top critics' gave the film a positive review. The number is actually

1196: 1315: 1302: 1174: 728: 1544: 1144: 1254: 419: 390: 375: 1013: 962: 655: 68: 39: 1739: 1721: 1520: 1511: 138: 120: 116: 83: 1748: 1540: 1524: 359: 1429: 1414: 1358: 1229: 1089: 294: 255: 188: 169: 150: 1571: 1463: 1646: 1601: 1501: 1292: 1170: 1123: 1070: 979: 947: 891: 858: 805: 752: 310:

can make this case in the discussion page of the article further reverts are edit warring see

1760: 1536: 1528: 1258: 934: 771: 675: 415: 386: 371: 1763:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1756: 1539:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1532: 1789: 1715: 1676: 1650: 1605: 1560: 1505: 1433: 1418: 1399: 1366: 1332: 1296: 1243: 1208: 1182: 1127: 1074: 1017: 983: 862: 809: 756: 732: 712: 679: 659: 651: 640: 626: 622: 607: 580: 556: 519: 485: 469: 447: 423: 408: 394: 379: 355: 339: 335: 323: 319: 298: 274: 259: 217: 192: 173: 154: 128: 91: 72: 64: 57: 43: 35: 1166:

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.

311: 247:, exactly? Especially among modern historians. Please could you provide some references. 1672: 650:

We seem to share a lot in common! I love Napoleonic and Roman times too! Keep it up :)

1661: 1637: