User talk:Ryanmcdaniel/History

This page is for discussion of history-related topics only.

The Iron Bridge

Hi Ryan. I did the revert during some down time at work, and have generally grown lazy in explaining my edits where they might be controversial and I don't have time to explain in detail, so I apologise if my revert seemed brusque. As the first significant iron structure (in the Western world, at least) I just automatically assumed that it would be immensely significant for anyone studying the history of the use of iron in architecture. I went to the industrial archaeology article to see if I could support my argument (and found it to be a pretty poor article), and managed to find the following web page that seems to support my argument. 1779, the date of construction of the bridge, is referred to in another precis included in one of the earlier volumes of this journal. Hope this indicates the importance of the structure itself in the Industrial Revolution. Cheers, Noisy | Talk 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree about the historical significance of the bridge---as the first of its size/kind, it's definitely significant. I was just nitpicking about the use of the word "archaeological", and the article's inclusion on the Category:Archaeological sites in England page---tossed in with medieval, Roman, and prehistoric sites, the Iron Bridge seems a little out of place. Would you be okay if I delisted it? Is it enough to be listed on Category:World Heritage Sites in England (which does play up its significance)? Ryan McDaniel 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a bit more digging (groan) I found that the Iron Bridge actually had its name used for an archaeological award in the past, so I think that the link between the bridge and archaeology is firmly established. Us Brits are very proud of our Industrial Revolution heritage, and this really is one of the pivotal and most iconic symbols that we have. I resist very strongly your suggestion that the link is removed. Noisy | Talk 11:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay, you win! :-) Not to continue the debate, but just for my own edification, then, when a Brit says "archaeology", what's the scope of that word? Here in America it usually implies the recovery of 'lost history'–finding things that were lost, reconstructing things that were broken, or explaining things that people had forgotten. That usually excludes things that have survived more-or-less intact and with a continuous history. By way of example, the excavation of the (long abandoned) first settlements in North America would be classified as archaeology. On the other hand, the preservation of the (roughly contemporaneous) old buildings in places like Boston or Philadelphia would not be archaeology–it'd just be history. So, as an American, I'd have been inclined to put the Iron Bridge in the second category, rather than the first. In the UK, do you not make that distinction? Thanks, Ryan McDaniel 14:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not 'win', but persuade you. :-) As I said above, the industrial archaeology article is pretty poor, but because the UK is pretty densely populated, a lot of the early industrial development is built over, and we are talking over 200 years ago, now. In archaeological terms, the iron bridge shows how the first structures were built using carpentry skills, and the erection method is unknown, so has been the subject of an experiment which was recorded as a documentary, by the BBC.

On a separate note, I see that you have done some work on ancient trackways. I've recently bought a book called Roads and Tracks for Historians by Paul Hindle, with some thought to using it as source material for turnpike development in the 18th century. The prehistoric track section is pretty slim, though. Noisy | Talk 01:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; I didn't realize that the Iron Bridge really was archaeological. Fascinating that they tried to re-invent the construction style for the experiment. (As an engineer, that would have been a cool project!) Well, you've persuaded me. Thanks for the tip about the Tracks book, too. Ryan McDaniel 06:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chew Valley Lake FAC

Hi, I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.

As you have edited this page in the past I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod 20:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comment on this page - you suggest the history section needs some work - what sort of thing are you thinking of? Rod 08:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't know much about the history of the Chew Valley area (and live in the US, so it'd be hard for me to brush up without some major research), but given the amount of archaeological material they seem to have removed before the reservoir was filled, it seems that this place must have some pretty significant history. Maybe worth a separate article? My comment wasn't intended to object to the nomination---just that the history section seems weak compared with some of the other sections. –Ryan McDaniel 15:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confucius

The Wikipedia guidelines are to avoid HTML wherever possible. There are various reasons for this; one is that it makes the editing page messy and difficult to read, another is that some codes have different effects or don't work at all in different browsers. In fact "blockquote" isn't usually a problem, and I'd not have reverted that on its own (I've sometimes used it myself, though I'm not sure that that's really recommended), but all the "br" instead of Wikipedia listing were what caused my revert here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Mind if I re-do the numbered list change to the other paragraph, then? —Ryan McDaniel 13:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm probably being slow; I can't see any numbered lists in the article. Which do you mean? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my post was unclear. I'd like to change

When Confucius held the post of the highest officer in Lu, he issued an arrest and execution order for Shao-Zheng-Mao (少正卯), a respected person in Lu. The order gave five rather vague reasons: 1. Having a recalcitrant mind, 2. Alienating himself and refusing changes, 3. Enjoying specious arguments, 4. Broadcasting others' faults, 5. Supporting and profiting from others' bad deeds. (１.心逆而险２.行辟而坚３.言伪而辩４. 记丑而博５.顺非而泽). (This accusation of judicial murder has been denied by Confucius' admirers.)

to read instead:

When Confucius held the post of the highest officer in Lu, he issued an arrest and execution order for Shao-Zheng-Mao (少正卯), a respected person in Lu. The order gave five rather vague reasons:

Having a recalcitrant mind (心逆而险)
Alienating himself and refusing changes (行辟而坚)
Enjoying specious arguments (言伪而辩)
Broadcasting others' faults (记丑而博)
Supporting and profiting from others' bad deeds (顺非而泽)

This has been interpreted as an act of judicial murder, an accusation which has been denied by Confucius' admirers.

Do you see any problems with this? Obviously I'd make the change without the hr's, I've just introduced them to offset this post from article text. —Ryan McDaniel 20:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine (no wonder I couldn't see the list — it was well camouflaged); I've just done the same to a list in Confucianism, by a strange coincidence. What "hr"s, though? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. By "hr"s I meant the horizontal rules (<hr>s). —Ryan McDaniel 21:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"hr"... I'm just being dense now; leave me alone — I'll snap out of it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Trackways in England

Hi. I notice that you say that this cat was originally called Ancient Trackways in Britain - which makes more sense. Why was it changed? SilkTork 13:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, someone else moved it. I didn't really have a gripe with the change, although I do agree that "Britain" makes more sense as the ancient name for the region. —Ryan McDaniel 14:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orvieto

Hi! Thanks for your work on Orvieto, but I'd have some notes about your formatting. IMHO, adding "clear" templates is generally not a good idea, as it created a lot of blank spaces which make the style of the entry to be messy and confusing. Give a check of the current format of the article and let me know your opinion. Bye and good work!! --Attilios 08:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, your rework looks much better. I apologize for the formatting screw ups---personally I'm a big fan of "clear", as I think it can make articles look more professional, but in this case you're right about the blank space. I was going to go back and try to fix things by adding more content, but I've been laid up with what feels like the plague for the past several days, so thanks for at least fixing the appearance! —Ryan McDaniel 15:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treaties between Rome and Carthage

Hi! I'm the ...well...main author (?) of the italian article AND of the horrible maps. I am the first to say they need to be improved (changed). I had to design them wery quickly for some reasons. Hope to have the time to make them better (new ones). If you do so please tell me. If I succeed in doing (but my time is very poor) I'll tell you (and IF they will be good enough you could use them). Sorry for my basic english and "thanks" for the translation. Vale! User Horatius on it.wiki--151.46.225.65 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! x2 :D. I've a little improved my horrible maps. Have a look on the Italian article. If you can bear them... Otherwise I'm afraid you'll make them yourself. Sorry. Vale! User Horatius on it.wiki --151.37.232.199 19:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horatius, non li vorrei pensare che i sui mappe originali fossero disegnati male. Ma, i sui nuovi mappe sono fantastici! Mille grazie per il suo lavoro duro! —Ryan McDaniel 03:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan. Just right now I saw your message in my "Discussioni". I hadn't noticed before because you made your own POBox!! (of course...you are very good computer-man). Unluckily this method doesn't make appear the orange warning strip and it must be put in a second time. And the various POBox are generally made by myself when mail grows enough. It's a complex method but some of us in Italy prefere like this to keep mail ordered automatically. But it's all right ! now I know there is your box. Only I'm really sorry not having answered before!!. Thanks for appreciating my poor efforts! I'm not a good computer-graphic. Not good as I would be! And the first series of maps were really "disegnati male". Thanks for forcing me to do a better job; I'm so lazy, you know... :) Bye (or, as i like) Vale! User Horatius on it.wiki--151.46.255.113 11:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romans in the Mendips

Hi, Ages ago you contacted me about the history & archeology of the Chew Valley & you seem to know lots about Roman history. I've added some more today about Chew & the Mendip Hills particularly a page about Charterhouse, Somerset largely based around the roman mines & fort on the site, but I'm sure I've got loads of it wrong as I have very little knowledge of the area. The trigger for doing this was finding the document Mendip Hills An Archaeological Survey of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which has also prompted me to add info on prehistoric & roman settlements (& forts etc) to lots of the sites in the Mendip Hills (which are listed on the template at the bottom of the pages) or see today's entries on my contributions [[1]]. If there is anyone else who might be able to help me get this lot right could you let me know their usernames so that I can ask for help as I feel out of my depth with this lot. Thanks in advance.— Rod ^talk 19:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, just wanted to let you know I hadn't ignored your request. I haven't had time yet to look over the changes (or that PDF), but I'll to cover it in the next week or so. If you're looking for other Roman-knowledgable types, try Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient Rome. —Ryan McDaniel 23:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Hi! I made Prehistoric sites in England (an article you started you started) a redirect to List of prehistoric structures in Great Britain (a new article that resulted from a split from List of historic buildings and architects of the United Kingdom. I hope that's ok. Feel free to edit the new article, I'm currently trying to organize it a bit and add short descriptions to each site. Pax:Vobiscum 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark of a request of mine as vandalism

In WikiProject Italy why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanibalos (talk • contribs) 18 July 2007

Beats me — the history log shows that you're the one who undid your own edit. —Ryan McDaniel 16:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks/grazie

Thank you very much for this and this!!!
Grazie mille per questo and questo!!! --Accurimbono 14:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. If you have any other translation requests (especially on Roman history), please let me know.

È il mio piacere. Se avete altri richieste (specialmente in storia romana), per favore, chiedere. (Nel caso non è evidente, il mio italiano è migliore per lettura che la scrittura.) —Ryan McDaniel 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Italian is (very) better than my English!!! :) I'm interested in archeology (and also engineering as you!) I'm contributing on it.wiki (my it.wiki user name is Accurimbono) in others articles: for example I suggest you the it:Domus dei Coiedii. At the moment there are not photos about the several beautiful mosaics, but I'm for uploading on Commons in few days. Other interesting ancient Rome related articles you can find on Augustan regions (it:Regioni dell'Italia augustea, this for example, but there are also others).

Thanks you very much!!! --Accurimbono 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for translating the Rule of 72 paragraph - and apologies for the informal approach.... Fintor 17:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about the informality. Really, it's just for ease of tracking the request. If you've got any other translation requests (esp. history related), just let me know. —Ryan McDaniel 23:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_European_history vs. Wikipedia:WikiProject_History/Task_forces/Europe

I'm posting a message to all members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_European_history to make sure everyon is aware that there is a proposal (apparently never discussed on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_European_history to deprecate the project and mark it {{historical}} supplanting it with Wikipedia:WikiProject_History/Task_forces/Europe. Whether or not this should occur, we need to have as much discussion as possible. So far, only two editors have had anything to say about it. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_European_history#WikiProject_History.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burgundians

Hi, I hope you are still keeping up with the messages people leave you on here! I noted on the discussion page of the article on the Burgundians that you had written a thesis paper on them? I am currently working on an historical-fiction project and am researching the Burgundians for this project. I would really appreciate it if I could read your thesis! Thank you so much! prtwhitley Prtwhitley (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]