User talk:Scipio3000: Difference between revisions

I am going to give references to all the material that I am going to present. If you need more info. on the books or authors let me know. I only want to provide a honest straight narrative of the history of Europe. My point is that Constantine the Great and the Roman Empire were responsible for spreading Christianity to Europe in the 4th Century AD as opposed to the time Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope as the "Emperor of the Romans" in the 9th Century AD, which became the Holy Roman Empire and that became the Habsburg dynasty. If anyone disagrees with my explanation as why my revision should not remain, please let me know. We should come to an agreed consensus and I hope the referenced material I am going to provide proves this. I took nothing from any of the links from Wikipedia so I suggest you check these out too. I got everything from my books. I used 5 seperate books, if need be, I can provide more sources. I am kinda embarrassed but I don't remeber exactly the proper way to do historical references nor do I know the system of putting up references on Wikipedia, but I will do my best....

The year 306 AD Rome and Italy were much less vital to the empire than they had been in the days of Hannibal or Augustus, but the ancient seat of power still had sufficient mystique that possession of it made it of great moral value to its imperial possessor.(1) In the West, the struggle was Maxentius, who had seized Italy and North Africa, and Constantine, who had suceeded his father Constantius as Western Emperor. in 312 Constantine invaded Italy and defeated Maxentius at Turin and Verona.(2) Constantine himself needed a to unite and inspire his troops, with the very conception of legitimate succesion under Diocletian system. He found God, or God found him, in a vision of a cross across the sun, a phenomenon that does in fact naturally occur under proper atmospheric conditions. Having seen the amazing sight, Constantine later told a biographer of a dream in which the long persecuted Christians had shown him a 'rho'[P] crossed with a 'chi'[X] and commanded 'In hoc signo, vincere'(In this sign conquer). If for no other reason than their remarkable persistence in the face of extensive persecution, the Christians were a moral force in the empire, and the soldiers accepted the generals vision and painted their emblem upon their shields. Constantines army had victory and vision on their side.(3)

He defeated Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge and made Christianity the state religion, confiscating temple treasure and building many new churches. This left him undisputed ruler of the Western provinces.(4) In 313 at the Edict of Milan constantine granted the Christians toleration and almost immediately, with the emperors patronage, an impressive building programme of cathedrals and churches started in Italy. In a few years the enormous Basilicas of St. John Lateran and St. Peter were built in Rome. Christian bishops were allowed to give Roman citizenship to slaves, and conduct their own law courts. A new heirarchy and a new kind of authority had come to Italy.(5)

At the Edict of Milan, Constantine iniated the Christianization of the Roman Empire. The conversion of parts of the Roman elite and promulagation of Christianity by Roman administrators set Europe on paths towards conversion, but fairly quickly the Church gathered its own momentum. charismatic individuals, some isolated holy men and women, others popular bishops and clergy, held great sway over local populations, while shrines devoted their lives to spiritual salvation achieved renown across Europe. Impressive ecclestical practices, such as cathedrals and monasteries, based upon traditional Roman imperial structures, began to replace these on the nascent urban landscapes across the continent.(6)

In 316 Constantine felt strong enough to attack his rival Licinius seizing Greece and the Balkans. The ensuing truce lasted until 324, when Constantine finally defeated Licinius; his victory reunited the Roman Empire. He also took personal interest in theology, participating in church councils at Arles in 314 and Nicaea in 325, and baptised on his deathbed in 337.(7) At Nicaea he presided over the first ecunenical council, representing the whole church, which defined beliefs for all Christians. A full ecclesiatical organization developed, with a heirarchy of bishops and a framework of patriarchates, provinces and dioceses throughout the empire.(8)

The two halves of the Roman Empire remained linked for half a century after the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine. Only in 395 AD, with the bitter death of Theodosius, did the complete break occure(9)

So based on that information, without Constantine and the incredible sway he had over the population and the networks and well connected logistics and roads of the Roman Empire allowed Christianity to spread rapidly and uniformly. At this time the Roman Empire was from Europe(England, France to the Rhine, Belgium, Swiss, [[Austria}], Spain, Italy, The Balkans, Greece, the Near East and North Africa). This is the majority of the known world at this time and without Constantine church councils, massive religious reforms, tolerance and promotion of christianity and the Roman empires connected and integrated society and logistics this would have never been possible, and Christianity may never had the chance to grow as it did. Nonetheless, it was constantine who gave Christianity its acceptance to the empire, its freedom to develop, the money and donations provided by the emperor for it to prosper, and its greatest push to a incredibly large, homogenious(culture-wise) society. If their is any disagreement with what I am saying please let me know. But please bring references and factual material, as that is the only thing that will suffice. Thanks for reading

1)M. Spilling(editor), "Battles of the Ancient World."(Barnes & Noble, Inc, 2007)*

2)C. Scarre, "The Penguin historical Atlas of Ancient Rome."(Penguin books, 1995)

3)M. Spilling(editor), "Battles of the Ancient World."(Barnes & Noble, Inc, 2007

4)C. Scarre, "The Penguin historical Atlas of Ancient Rome."(Penguin books, 1995)

5)H. Hearder, "Italy:A short history."(Cambridge University press, 1990)

6)A. Jotischky & C. Hull, "The Penguin Historical Guide of the MEdieval World."(Penguin books, 2005)

7)C. Scarre, "The Penguin historical Atlas of Ancient Rome."(Penguin books, 1995)

8)G.Parker(ed.), "The Compact hsitory of the world."(Times books, 1995)

9)H. Hearder, "Italy:A short history."(Cambridge University press, 1990)

• Books has 5 different authors if you need me to name them let me know.

I feel that what Wikipedia is for and it's objective is to give people a good understanding and overview of a subject. I go on here to get the general idea of something and if I am interested there are links or references to find more information. But several articles on here are sloppy or not structured properly and I feel this to be the case with this article.

I want to give the general person a factual, informative introduction to Sicily and provide links if a certain time period interests them. But I want them to be able to go through each section and briefly get the general idea of each period in the long, fairly complicated and rich history of Sicily.

I feel that some material was forced into an article and did not fit, and some sections were too sloppy, random and they really weren't getting to the point, it was alot of names and dates and it was rushed. I still left a direct link to those articles too and several other important and informative links you unfortunately undid.

To the average reader, we want to present an easy-to read and understanable page where they can breeze through it and get the basics. I don't think we should go into too much detail especially material that is not really that relevant or instrumental to the History of Sicily. I guess I am saying I want to get to the point, without spending too much time on any one section. In conclusion, I feel that we need to stay with the facts in an easy to read, concise, chronological, factual manner.

My changes should at least be reviewed. It flows better, it is historically accurate, detailed, informative, condensed, concise and to the point. I am willing to be flexible and I am open to any questions or concerns.

For a general page such as Sicily, I see it like being the "Homepage", I want to give a short, detailed summary and add several links for those who are interested in whatever section then they can find out more info. from that section. I also want to add Demographics, Cuisine, Tourism, Sports, Music. I should have told you what my intentions were.(Scipio3000 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I asked you here if you had deleted any comments from the Sicily discussion page and you replied No, I only changed the main article and that was only on "Sicily" not "The History of Sicily" article. [1]. You then deleted that response [2]. In truth, you deleted long sections of comments from Talk:Sicily herewhich included comments from other users. Since you cannot honestly answer a single question I put to you, I will endorse allowing the block to continue through it's duration. I hope to help you but cannot if you will not work with me. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am just being abused, it is that simple. I don't see why what I did a week ago has anything to do with this current block?? Yet I am being held punishable for the past. I was blocked for those reasons already, so why are you blocking me again? This is like a criminal serves his sentence and then he is freed, gets a speeding ticket and immediately is held guilty for the past crimes he already paid his dues for and has to pay for them again...how is this fair? Honestly? Please answer that question, digging in my past does not justify your actions.

If you were only to judge me for this current block and misunderstanding, than you would see, I did nothing wrong. I have apologized several times and too several people, yet this is not enough on this site. I must be questioned and analyzed word for word. I have no rights and I am black listed. This is sad if this is your version of justice, equality and fairness. I deserve a second chance, I did nothing wrong this time.

If you and the other admin. would rather support, flawed, biased, non-referenced, out of context, poorly written material, then go ahead, it is your name on it. And when real historians look at it they will say it is a sloppy mess! I know the truth of my heritage and culture, and you can't take that from me. I truly feel what you are doing is incredibly unfair and mean.(Scipio3000 14:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Look I understand your concern, what Edward 321 said(and I sent him an apology too!), link 69 and 70 I was already punished for, so why am I still being held accountable for this? Do I not get a clean slate or second chance? And the last two complaints he makes where on my own personal page! I attacked no one. I left that message which he accuses me of(link 71 and 72) on my own personal user page. Everyone else is allowed to have whatever pictures and contents they want on there user page, besides I didn't say anything bad anyways. It was only sarcasm and it is not like anybody(besides people who are watching every move I make and are practically stalking me) is going to read it anyway.

I am being unfairly treated. I should not be judged for what I did in my past discussions as I was already punished and blocked for that...The only relevant issue is Is this current block fair? Not what I did a week ago(which I already paid my dues). I judge people by their actions Today...not what they did previuosly, If today you are doing your best, that is good for me, I have been atatcked by several people on here it has been a never ending battle, and all I am trying to do is make improvements.

Scipio, the main reason for the block was pretty much the 3rr violation. 3rr vio's are not acceptable when the revert was not intended to revert vandalism. After this block you are welcome to start a clean slate and I'm sure people understand your stance now. I still welcomed any other administrator to undo the 48 hour block at any time.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry but that is simply not true. El_C said he was going to let it go and even you were too. But JodyB decided against it because of something I did a week ago....I repeat, A week ago, and I was already disciplined for that. How is that Fair or Relevant?

So, it is not because of the 3rr, please read the discussion I had yesterday with Miranda and El_C(who I sent an email today apologizing) and you will see I am telling the honest truth. This is unfair, no matter how you word it. It is simply because of what I did in the past and that is all there is to it, I have been black-listed(look how Edward321 was stalking me and telling on me for my own user page for crying out loud!)

I served my punishment for that and now I am being slammed with an extra 2 days. If you would look beyond my past and simply look at this issue, on a case by case analysis, you would have no problems removing my block. Two days is waaayyy too harsh anyways. No, sorry no matter how you look at it this is a gross injustice.(Scipio3000 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'd like to provide a little bit of perspective here: what you are contesting is a 48 hour block. I repeat: 48 hours and it will expire in 20 hours. Wikipedia will still be there tomorrow and chances are the articles you're interested in will have barely changed. Just relax and come back fresh tomorrow. From what I see you're not likely to recognize this block as anything other than a gross injustice and admins involved are unlikely to lift the block. So let's just stop arguing and let the block run out. People will listen to what you have to say about these articles if you treat them with respect and avoid unproductive edit warring. Pascal.Tesson 02:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my request not to put comments on my talk archive. You said you did not know where to put your remarks. Why not try putting them directly on my talk page, rather than on an archive with an explicit "don't edit" template? Think about it. --Mathsci 08:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block expires soon and I know you wish to get back to work. Please heed our encouragements and be productive. Please keep the following in mind.

1. Do not delete anything from an article talk page.
2. Do not revert without taking it to the article talk page.
3. Be prepared to compromise with other editors even it means surrendering something you personally think is important.
4. Communicate in a concise fashion; use as few words as possible and still be clear.

Thanks --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 17:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]