Per una valida collaborazione agli articoli riguardo la storia di Dalmazia e Istria ossia foibe massacres, Istrian exodus, history of Dalmatia, Dalmatian Italian, ecc. puoi contattare gl'italiani user:Il palazzo, user:Nickel Chromo, user:Attilios e user:Emanuele Mastrangelo attivi pure su it.wiki. Per l'articolo sul dittatore Josip Broz Tito puoi contattare l'italiano user:AndreaFox2 e l'australiano user:Sir Floyd attaccato dal solito DIREKTOR. Se puoi, lascia un messaggio in user talk:Jimbo Wales per un appello finalizzato a sbloccare user:Luigi 28, user:Barba Nane, user:Ducatista2, user:Miranovic, user:Trusciante, user:Pantaleone, user:Vastaso che son stati messi al bando su istigazione delle famigerate utenze slave che conosci: difatti agiscono una in sostegno dell'altra contro il regolamento che definisce questo comportamento meatpuppetry sanzionabile con la messa al bando. Considera inoltre che DIREKTOR ha ricevuto 3 blocchi per guerre editoriali e fu ristretto ossia limitato in una serie di articoli nei quali insiste con il suo POV: leggi qui Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia#DIREKTOR restricted dunque se lo bloccano ancora una volta è prossimo alla messa al bando. Questi slavi negano la pulizia etnica contro i cittadini italiani ordinata dal dittatore Broz e di conseguenza vogliono fare qui pulizia istigando gli amministratori contro utenze italiane e non che si oppongono alla loro agenda politica, che è pure sanzionabile con messa al bando. Per avere un'idea guarda qui e successivi interventi, poi qui con successivi interventi; ancora leggi qui con l'ennesima guerra editoriale prima e dopo questa modifica; posso continuare con altri articoli nei quali DIREKTOR nega la pulizia etnica fatta dai croati nella guerra interslava dopo il 1991 e attacca utenze serbe: insomma è inaccettabile questo schifo! Leggi qui: wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive587#User:DIREKTOR
Hi, Aldrasto. I am indeed interested in Roman subjects, and am perhaps too vocal about my views, which mainly have to do with content rather than technical matters. It's a pleasure, and not at all trouble, to welcome you as an editor, even though I may not be able to help with your particular questions. With formatting for articles, I learned hands-on, and made many silly mistakes at first. I still don't know how to do the preferred format for footnotes (or rather, I find it awkward and distracting), and use a rather basic form. If other editors want to standardize it, great. My suggestion would be to choose an article that strikes you as well done and that does the kind of things you want to do with notes or other formatting; open it in "edit this page" mode, and study the formatting tags. People learn in different ways, but I myself do better with direct observation and imitation rather than studying a style manual.
I suggest previewing your changes often, and editing entire pages rather than sections if you're dealing with footnotes, since footnotes don't show up when you're only editing a section. If you have specific questions, I've found that people are very good about responding to questions left at the Help Desk. You might also want to save your changes after you work a certain amount of time, 20 or 30 minutes. Less potentially to lose or restore.
As for software, I've been made aware that some people have trouble viewing certain things depending on their operating system or whatever, but since I use a Mac, everything seems pretty straightforward for me. So I'm of little help there.
In part because of the holidays and entertaining guests, I won't be editing for a while, only checking the pages on my watchlist. I'm also feeling a little discouraged about Wikipedia, because of the kind of numbing, non-intellectual arguments that seem to be required with increasing frequency to defend small points. I do have some things to finish up after the New Year, so please let me know if I can be of any help to you. Best wishes! Cynwolfe (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I just carried out the move of your article Flamen Quirinalis. I noticed that with some further improvements, it could be featured at the Did you know section of the Main Page. For that, the article would need some more references--ideally, every single paragraph should be supported by a reference. Ucucha 12:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on Roman law either, but I'd be glad to read your article. I'll comment on tht Lex Regia talk page, and/or make changes directly to the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your interesting notes. Servius Tullius is a figure I hope to explore when I get a chance — such an interesting collocation of divine and mythic elements, and yet credited with many actions that seem historically plausible. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
A separate article seems an excellent suggestion. I don't think Religion in ancient Rome can offer more than an accurate overview - hence, I guess, your courteous frustration at that article talk-page. Roman religious terminology is a vast, complex and difficult topic and yes, we seem to lack a central reference article. Or rather, if one already exists, I've not found it. I'm sure you have your own ideas on format but I suggest a well sourced alphabetical list as the most useful. Some articles already provide definition and explanatory context - unfortunately, not many of them. I think you should go for it. And forgive me if I'm stating what's already obvious to you but if you develop the article as a user sub-page, and especially if you cite as you go, you'll reduce the risk of challenge or premature deletion by zealous watchers and robotniks. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's a site I just discovered that you may know already: The Roman Law Library. If not, thought it might be worth pointing out. (And sorry if I've seemed unresponsive to your always-welcome notes; I have literally five unfinished articles that interrelate that I can't seem to finish, and I'm trying to pursue them doggedly.) Cynwolfe (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you help me out here? I believe that under Augustus, the official year (and therefore the oaths of new magistrates) starts August 1 - but is that correct? And do you know if this a traditional date for inception of new magistrates throughout the Roman period? Were others used? Any light you can shed on this would help. Haploidavey (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Aldrasto. A day or two ago I posted a little article on Granius Flaccus that may have a couple of points of interest to you in regard to leges regiae. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Vocabulary of ancient Roman religion. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Templum. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Templum - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon))
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I sincerely hope this helps. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Aldrasto, thanks for your comment; I think your latest on my talk might be in response to the post above: that's not mine, it's from DES (if you open the edit history on this page, you can link to his talk and respond there, if you wish).
Please note that all comments here are intended to help, not to put you off! I'm not sure what you meant about the line drawn under Templum. The article has been very usefully reformatted (by DES); I'll take a look at the history to see if I can figure what might have happened. By the way, the Rüpke volume (see above) is pan-European, pan-American, and represents the work of thirty or so historians; I'm sure some will be familiar to you. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think an outline of this content (minus the more technical Latin!) would certainly be a helpful addition at Augur. Cheers, Haploidavey (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
DES (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do, and post the links here as and when I find them. The material is of course immensely useful and in many cases the scholarship's sound. I seldom use it directly & prefer to rely on modern scholarship, so if you're willing to add the email forwarding facility to your "user preferences", I'll try to send you something a bit more up-to-date. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Links:
PS: Thayer takes pains to point out that the link above is not his homepage. Oh well. It's still the most useful for our Romanish purposes. Haploidavey (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Aldrasto. Not exactly sure what you're asking me. I do have more sections to contribute on the Novensiles; I got sidetracked by some questions that came up in the course of familiarizing myself with the scholarly questions that pertain. One section, for instance, will present the "nine deities" question; another, the question of Sabine origin as alleged by Varro and at least one other ancient source. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Would you be happy to create new articles for your longer entries at the above? I can help tighten them up without loss of substance, if you're OK with that; and Elen of the Roads has offered her help. Take a look at the talk-page; let us know what you think. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Aldrasto, when you wikilink to other articles, could you check that it's going to the right place. In Vocabulary of ancient roman religion, WildBot keeps flagging up links to disambiguation pages, and sometimes I don't know where you intended to go - for instance in the last run, the bot flagged for Gaius, by which I presumed you meant Gaius the juror, and also for Pius. In that case, I had to take the link out (it was in a ((main|)) template) because I couldn't guess where you intended going - so if you could check and put that one back appropriately, that would be good. I know how easy it is to link to the dab page by mistake (I did the same with grove and had to correct to Sacred grove for the Grove of Diana in Fanum. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
As requested I answer here on my talk page.
Gaius is the Roman jurist. As for Pius Wiki has got such an entry indeed, although very brief, ie being this a vocabulary of Roman religion Pius is intended as a (Latin) adjective used in Roman religion to connote somebody or something as respectful of divine law. Of course here I would like to give readers a more detailed presentation.Aldrasto (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
You seem discouraged. Your answers to queries show intelligent response to complex, specialised material; and you're certainly not short on self-criticism. I think everyone here appreciates and values your commitment. Your willingness to work in a foreign language (English) is admirable. Please don't give up on editing what you've already provided.
Regarding sources: frustrating but don't give up. The partial previews available through googlebooks can be an immensely useful resource. Finding them takes practice; a year into editing here, I'm still learning, and am very much the tyro. At some point, you'll almost certainly need to use a good library with modern, specialist resources - I don't know how you're placed for that, especially for works in English; but many works of international repute (the very useful Scheid, for example), are translated into several languages. I go to London twice a year with reading list and notebook, and spend five or so intensive days ploughing through works found either through google's partial previews, or at the recommendation of other wiki-editors.
Editing the material: the more you do it, the easier it gets. Honest. A suggestion, then: make a copy of, say, Leges Regiae and paste it into a user-page. Work on it for a day or so, then leave it entirely alone for a while - don't even read it. When you come back to it, don't add anything; just organise what you have and trim away any dead wood. Repeat the process for a month or so; at least that.
Just to get things in proportion: rewriting the Gladiator article took me (and others) six very intensive months of stumbling. As soon as I thought it was OK, I found it wasn't. It's still not "finished" because no wikipedia article ever is; but it's more-or-less good enough to serve its purpose. Some editors work much more quickly, and certainly far more efficiently than I do. But that's them. What you're dealing with is far more complex and harder to source than anything I've dared to tackle.
I hope I don't sound patronising, presumptuous or preachy. I know how it is to be utterly fascinated by the material and drown in the details. Eventually I'm learning to swim, as well as splutter. Haploidavey (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that entry to the Glossary. It's a subject I've been interested in for some time. For some reason, however, it hadn't dawned on me that this would be connected to an ostentarium de arboribus. Duh for me and good for you. Hope you're well. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Aldrasto/ver sacrum, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aldrasto/ver sacrum and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Aldrasto/ver sacrum during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)