User talk:Ovid99

Welcome!

Hi Ovid99! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! TSventon (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid99 (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Godmanchester, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reverted two of your reversions for accuracy. read notes in view history for more info Ovid99 (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid99, I suggest that you read Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. In summary:

Wikipedia articles should summarise what reliable sources have said about a topic, not unpublished facts or opinions (original research).
Using a source to support a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source is regarded as synthesis, a form of original research.
Any statements which are likely to be challenged should be supported by a reference to a reliable source.
Wikipedia prefers the use of secondary sources such as modern scholarship, rather than ancient texts. TSventon (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can notify an editor such as @Mako001: when you reply to their post by using {{reply to|Username}} and signing your post. TSventon (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I will have a chance to look at this sometime this autumn. Ovid99 (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid99, please ensure that information you add to articles is supported by references to reliable sources as required by the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Have you had a chance to review the links I added above? Let me know if you have any questions. I have looked at the etymology section of Goddards Green, West Sussex, which is relatively short and has three references to works by Alexander del Mar, Procopius and Ivan Margary. They don't seem sufficient to support the information in the section as Del Mar and Procopius do not mention Goddards Green and Margary (1955 edition) just describes the Roman road through it. Del Mar was published in 1900, so it will not reflect current academic opinion, see WP:AGE MATTERS. For Wikipedia, Procopius is a primary source, so WP:PRIMARY says it should be used with care. Margary was published in 1973, and looks like a reliable source about Roman roads. TSventon (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I read them. i will qualify the cite. Ovid99 (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I read them. i will qualify the cite Ovid99 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt.

What is the newer source that you believe refutes Del Mar and Pricopius?Ovid99 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating the Goddards Green article, however the information not based on reliable sources should be removed, not just qualified with "may" or "though this is uncertain".

Del Mar is an older source (1900) and Procopius is a primary source (6th century). Wikipedia consensus is that articles should use mainly secondary sources and that older secondary sources may be outdated. TSventon (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked Procopius and del Mar online. In addition to not being current scholarship, they do not support the idea that Ostrogoths and Visigoths migrated to Britain. According to Procopius Belisarius said "And we on our side permit the Goths to have the whole of Britain, which is much larger than Sicily and was subject to the Romans in early times. For it is only fair to make an equal return to those who first do a good deed or perform a kindness."^[1] Procopius is describing the situation in Italy, not in Britain.

Goths in del Mar seem to mean mean Germanic tribes fron the North and Baltic seas rather than Ostrogoths or Visigoths as he says "the terms Goths, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Salic Franks and Northmen are convertible" on page 141.^[2] TSventon (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but that does not answer my question. The question was: what is the newer source that you believe refutes Del Mar and Pricopius? I would also add, "why do you believe that source refutes them?"

Pricopius states: "And we on our side permit the Goths to have the whole of Britain..." Do you believe that "Britain" in this quote actually refers to Italy? Why do you believe that?

From the guidelines: With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. Pricopius was a government official of the Roman Empire based in Constantinople, speaking of contemporary events involving the Roman Empire, with knowledge of a former province in the Roman Empire called Britannia, and with access to the knowledge base of the Roman Empire. What is the source that refutes Pricopius, is it nearer or farther from the event, and does it contain more or less detail than Pricopius' account? The reason the level of detail is important is that it allows the scholar to evaluate the premise upon which that refutation is predicated, as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines. Ovid99 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Del Mar is a tedious read, and some of his conclusions are questionable. Your interpretation that he "seems" to imply that Germanic tribes from the North and Baltic rather than Ostrogoths or Visigoths" are at issue is a bit off the mark but begins to approach the truth. His premise - accepted in part by several generations of scholarship - is that "the Goths" were the dominant "Eastern Germanic" force of the ancient world and included continental tribes (Ostrogoths (including their Crimean offshoot) & Visigoths) as well as Scandinavian ones (Gutar, Gutones/Geats and Jutes) and it is this Eastern Germanic force - not the subsequent Western Germanic force (i.e. Franks, Saxons, Frisians, Angles/Ingaevones, etc.) that represents the first wave of Germanic settlement of Britain (from the Geatish and Jutish Cimbric peninsula to the north to the pre-Saxon Netherlandic coast in the center to the Visigothic Gaulish coast to the south.

Ovid99 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Procopius (1919). The Gothic Wars of Procopius, Book II. Loeb Classical Library.
^ Del Mar, Alex (1900). Ancient Britain in the Light of Modern Archaeological Discoveries. New York: Cambridge Press. p. 141.

Ovid99 1. the main problem with the etymology section of Goddards Green, West Sussex is that it uses Procopius and Del Mar to support "The root god may link the name to the town of Godstone in Surrey, with which it was connected via one of the old Roman roads. It may also suggest an association with the Goths" although neither source discusses place names. That is WP:SYNTHESIS, drawing your own conclusions from sources rather than summarising what the source itself says, and a form of original research.

2. WP:AGE MATTERS does say "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing." but the main point of the section is that "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed."

3. There is a discussion about ancient historians as primary sources at Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources#Are ancient historians primary or secondary source? WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."

4. I haven't answered the questions "what is the newer source that you believe refutes Del Mar and Procopius?" or "why do you believe that source refutes them?" because the issue is that one is a 19th century and the other a Byzantine historian, not how much of their work has been refuted. TSventon (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your first interpretation, but there is no merit to the other two Ovid99 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean there is no merit to the other three? My reply had four paragraphs, which I have now numbered. TSventon (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meonwara

Hi

Just to let you know I have added a citation to the Meonwara (Etymology section) that states that 'The origin of the name 'Mēon is Celtic or preCeltic', the reference is by Dr Kelly A. Kilpatrick, Institute for Name-Studies, University of Nottingham which I believe is pretty secure.

I thought that you might be interested in the latest Meon valley research? Have a look at Saxons in the Meon Valley. Regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid99, I notice that you have used Wiktionary as a reference in the Meonwara article. Wiktionary is user generated and thus not a reliable source, see WP:USERGENERATED. It is also WP:SYNTHESIS to use a dictionary definition of a word as evidence that it is a possible source for a place name, unless the dictionary definition mentions the place name. TSventon (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Great resource! Ovid99 (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid99 and Wilfridselsey, I have mentioned you both at Talk:Anglo-Saxons#Meonwara and Wihtwara. TSventon (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ovid99.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[ProcopiusLoeb-1] Procopius (1919). The Gothic Wars of Procopius, Book II. Loeb Classical Library.

[Del_Mar-2] Del Mar, Alex (1900). Ancient Britain in the Light of Modern Archaeological Discoveries. New York: Cambridge Press. p. 141.

[1]

[2]