Disputatio Usoris:Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Salve, Tim!

Gratus in Vicipaediam Latinam acciperis! Ob contributa tua gratias agimus speramusque te delectari posse et manere velle.

Cum Vicipaedia nostra parva humilisque sit, paucae et exiguae sunt paginae auxilii, a quibus hortamur te ut incipias:

Si plura de moribus et institutis Vicipaedianis scire vis, tibi suademus, roges in nostra Taberna, vel roges unum ex magistratibus directe.

In paginis encyclopaedicis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in paginis disputationis memento editis tuis nomen subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~, quibus insertis nomen tuum et dies apparebit. Quamquam vero in paginis ipsis nisi lingua Latina uti non licet, in paginis disputationum qualibet lingua scribi solet. Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis mea tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" fieri velle! -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 24 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For further information see Formula:Non stipula, but the most basic requirements for a new page are an external source (which you are supplying, no problem) and about 200 characters or more of running text. I think it's because these pages have very brief text at present that the {{Augenda}} formula is being added to them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:31, 24 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was someone got confused by the dates. So I'm rewriting them and spelling out the months in the genitive case, as appropriate. Someone thought that represented page numbers, that's why you see the question marks. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 11:33, 24 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, and thanks for replying. Plenty of time to get things right. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 24 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you[fontem recensere]

... for one day, for trolling. If you really want to propose such a change of practice, propose it in a sensible place (either at the Vicipaedia:Taberna or at Disputatio Vicipaediae:De orthographia. I suggest you use the intervening time to learn how to edit more efficiently, without continuous saves (you retain access to other Wikipedias on which you can practice this skill). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:17, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The a.U.c. calendar isn't a change of practice, it's one of the authorized options. I shouldn't even be asking for permission to use it when permission has already been given. You're the one proposing a change by proposing we use only the anno Domini calendar, and you're blocking me as you're proposing the change. As for the continuous saves, no one told me any rule about that, and you didn't give me any notice in advance before you blocked me. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 19:26, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My memory is that someone did mention it, somewhere, but I forget who; perhaps Lesgles? Maybe you were too busy to notice it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:08, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lesgles mentioned my many edits and suggested I use the preview option, and it looked like it was a suggestion to help me out, not a rule imposed only on me all of a sudden, unbeknownst to me, whose specifics I have yet to see in writing. Speaking of things happening all of a sudden, Lesgles is doing some fast revision of the date guidelines as we speak over at Vicipaedia:De orthographia. The change Lesgles made was to take out the part that says the a.U.c. dating system is a valid option. I don't think people are going to stop using the a.U.c. dating system because of a "consensus" among this group whose obvious agenda is to have Christianity continue to be the dominating force in the area of date-setting. They believe that we've inherited a Christian calendar and that now we're stuck with it. And it is disingenuous to say that the Common Era labelling is not a denial of where the system comes from. Conservapedia is in agreement with me on this point.[1] Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 21:09, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A project designed to be spectacularly biased ("written from an American conservative, Young Earth creationist, and Christian fundamentalist point of view," sez Wikipedia, citing Der Spiegel) cannot serve as an unbiased source. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:02, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll get no argument from me about the bias in Conservapedia. Conservapedia doesn't accept any type of prehistoric system of epoch classification that would contradict the Bible, as one can see by its Pleistocene entry.[2] The point I was making was that they agree with me on one thing, maybe you didn't notice that and I don't want to belabor it by explaining it again.
Your Augustus proposal is a lot better than the AD system, and it wouldn't be the first time year 0 was set to be aligned with the history of specific Roman leaders. AUC was not by any means the only system used by the Romans, as we can see from the article I referenced and as you might already know. But I think AUC will find wider acceptance than any other Roman dating system because historically it has found wide acceptance. Many people know about AUC, whereas the other systems are rarely even mentioned by people. Again, I would take the Augustus proposal over AD or CE anytime, but I would take AUC over the Augustus proposal.
I hate to say it Iacobus, but most people aren't looking at Vicipaedia to find information they can't find elsewhere, so that begs the question of why we want it around. One answer is that it is one way to learn about all things Roman, which includes the Latin language. So that actually goes to the point. If people are looking at Vicipaedia to learn, they won't be put off by having to do conversions from the AUC system to the AD system -- we're doing laborious stuff on Vicipaedia anyway, and were doing it to learn or to sharpen our skills!
Let's be honest, if people really want the exact date that, let's say, Pegida was founded, they can simply click on another language and get the date.That information came from English and German articles anyway, like probably is the case with so many other articles on Vicipaedia. Nuntii Latini is one of the only Latin news outlets in the world, and what they offer is wonderful, but we need a lot more of it.
People want a cultural experience, and one way to do that is to use the AUC system. I'm not even entirely convinced that the Roman numerals weren't providing that type of cultural experience, but I put that discussion on the back burner for the moment. Maybe that was a mistake, I don't know. It might actually be the case that we would remember numbers more easily if we saw them written in Roman numerals. But for now, what I want to focus on is advocating the AUC system, and I'm convinced that the discussion on the PEGIDA talk page has not succeeded in abrogating it from the face of the Earth, I'm convinced people are going to continue to use it anyway, here on Vicipaedia and elsewhere.
Do you know what I find interesting? Lesgles said, "I'm strongly against that [the AUC system], except perhaps occasionally in ancient Roman history articles." Then Lesgles took out the section which authorized AUC at Vicipaedia:De orthographia yesterday at 20:51 hrs. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 15:48, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather see anno Domini than Common Era, because at least that would reflect the situation more accurately. If you were to take a poll asking people what happened the year 0 CE, what do you think the answer would be and what percentage of times? Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 21:09, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever people might reveal to pollsters, the pertinent answer would be nihil because (as has recently been pointed out) the Gregorian calendar has no year zero. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:55, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know there was no year zero until I saw the "no year zero section" in Wikipedia's anno Domini article. That's kind of a moot point, though, because you know I'm just talking about year 1 BC, but at least I learned something through this discussion. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 23:04, 16 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a short block. We're here to write an encyclopedia: your recent edits weren't helping. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:39, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to sell me the block by saying it's short? You did wrong to destroy my reputation by calling me a troll just for doing lots of edits on my own words as I was engaging in an extremely important conversation about the a.U.c. calendar option that is already authorized by Vicipaedia. Can I read minds to know when I'm editing my own words more than you want me to on a talk page? You should take your words back. Even if you would though, the damage you've done to my reputation is irreparable, you've destroyed my reputation forever. Wikipedia doesn't belong to me, I didn't say it did, and I was using it to the best of my knowledge the way it should be. Does Wikipedia belong to a certain individual or individuals who have custodians working for them? I didn't see anything like that written anywhere. People would probably like an answer to that before they volunteer to give their time editing it. How do you personally define an honest invitation to edit? I didn't see written anywhere that if all I did was accept the invitation and start editing Andrew Dalby would call me a troll for doing that. You haven't really addressed the issues we've discussed either. Do you want everyone to be Christian and use the anno Domini calendar? By the way, Andrew, I never asked you to thank me for anything, although you did, and you know I've never thanked you for anything. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 04:53, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said in my brief note above: "Your recent edits weren't helping." Not quite true, after all, because you have encouraged updating of the guidelines, and that's a good thing.
I advise, when you return, that you add some more article text: that's the main aim of all of us. But of course we can all contribute in discussions such as Disputatio Vicipaediae:De orthographia also. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:47, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, what you're writing now can only be interpreted as a backhanded comment. Explain what you mean by "trolling". If you don't want what you would call "trolling" to happen again, do you think there's less of chance of it happening if you explain in detail what you mean? Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 19:11, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Useless argument. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:07, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which argument are you saying is useless? Again, you're not being clear at all, I can't read minds. I have a total of three discussions going on with three different people on Vicipaedia at this moment, and I don't know which one you're referring to, I haven't a clue. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 20:09, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked you for a week. Whether the block becomes permanent will depend on your response to it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:21, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to stop talking about AUC? You didn't say that, and I can't think of a reason why anyone would say something like that. You advised that I add text to the article, but I don't work for you, and you didn't say I did. Nor did you say not to continue conversing on the talk page, and I don't know who would say something like that either. As far as what the "main aim" is for each person, I wonder why you speak for other people. There might be someone whose main aim is to post only on talk pages, for whatever reason.
You've never seen a conversation like that? That's the only way I know how to have a conversation. You thanked me once, which I would rather you not do, then you said I was trolling, and I have no idea what you mean by that. I've seen what the dictionary says about it, but I don't know if your definition is the same as the one in the dictionary I saw. There are many dictionaries out there.
You thank me, so I'm thinking maybe you want a lot of thank yous and your welcomes sprinkled throughout a conversation. Some people aren't like you, some people would say it isn't about personal favors and they see that type of language as a personal favor. Some people would say it is unprincipled to use lots of thank yous and your welcomes. The question arises of what people will say when gratitude isn't constantly being shown.
I think the "thank you" button is something we don't need. How do you feel now that I'm reminding you you pressed the "thank you" button to thank me? Maybe you wish you hadn't, and that's the point. It's an embarrassment. Don't you sort of feel duped by the system that presented you this "thank you" button?
I'm noticing you don't give advance notice when you think action should be taken to stop something. You block me without telling me in advance that you think something I'm doing deserves blocking. It's clear you think I've understood what you want and that I'm just doing the opposite anyway, but I don't have the ability to read your mind.
Maybe you wonder why someone like me doesn't just open a different account instead of explain my reasoning, and you wonder why I even bother to try to get to the bottom of what's happening. Do you think some people take Wikipedia policy seriously? I am one who never, ever assumes people are dishonest. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 20:24, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lesgles, are you saying you think AUC should only be used for, let's say, dates before the so-called Common Era? Then if you are, I don't know why you took it out of the list of options. You're saying it is an option. Do you think AUC should be limited to specific geographic areas before, let's say, the so-called Common Era? It would be interesting to know what exact geographic areas that would cover, if that is your position. What about when Roman history overlaps with other things? What about the first few centuries after the beginning of the so-called Common Era, when the Roman Empire was still in full swing? Remember that after the Roman Empire, there was the so-called Holy Roman Empire as well. And there was the Eastern Roman Empire, which was also extant well into what is known as the second millennium (the third millennium AUC). For that matter, it could be argued that the Roman Empire never ended and has its expression in modern states that exist today. So then we're back to square one. We could say modern nations in existence today are still carrying the baton that was passed on through the millennia.
I have a question about a different subject, Lesgles. If you think I do too many edits on my own words, why keep responding? Do you think people will stop talking to you if you stop talking to them? Then there might be fewer edits in the end. It actually does take two to have a conversation. I wonder if what you really want is to have the last word and that's why you said I was "doing a lot of edits". Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 00:24, 16 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notae[fontem recensere]

  1. ↑ Conservapedia Commandments. Conservapedia. 14 Iulii 2016.
  2. ↑ Pleistocene. Conservapedia. 15 Iulii 2016.

De obstructione[fontem recensere]

Hi, Tim. The block I imposed ends tomorrow. What happens next is up to you. There are three things to notice:

  • Discussion of other Wikipedians' thoughts and motives is ruled out (equally for everybody: no one here does this).
  • You must keep off policy discussions for the present.
  • If you want to work on encyclopedia articles, that's great: you are needed. Vicipaedia needs more on current political parties, for example.

I'll await your reply. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 21 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Receptum de "https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disputatio_Usoris:Tim%22DerTimotheus%22Rice&oldid=3103347"