User talk:Pumpu

Welcome!

Hello, Pumpu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Quintus Pomponius Musa, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!   Ravenswing  10:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Quintus Pomponius Musa

A tag has been placed on Quintus Pomponius Musa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.  Ravenswing  10:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Pomponius has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bexample\.com' .

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent contributions

When copying long sections of 150 yr old books into Wikipedia (a questionable practice at best, but not a violation of copyright), you should consider translating the wording into prose that sounds a little more modern. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pomponia (gens)

Hello, Pumpu. Thank you for your appreciation! A barnstar is a very nice gesture. I thought I would explain why your recent edits to Pomponia (gens) have been reverted, since clearly you have an interest in the subject.

With respect to Mrs. Hamilton Gray's work, it's a very old treatise, and its speculation about the origin of the name does not seem to have been followed by any other scholars over the last century. In fact, nearly all sources are unanimous in stating that "Pompo" is the Oscan equivalent of the Latin "Quintus," P and Q being transposed between the two branches of Italic. It's not an Etruscan name, even though the Etruscans seem to have borrowed many Latin and perhaps also Oscan names. So it's not out of the question that an Etruscan could have this name. Since the Etruscans generally replaced O with U, it would of course be spelt "Pumpu." If the names Pompilius or Pomponius were rendered in Etruscan, and in the genetive, of course they would appear as "Pumpni" or "Pumpli" and I think these may in fact be known. But the name is still not Etruscan, and while Etruscan scholars have tried to show that many early innovations, perhaps including those attributed to the reign of Numa Pompilius, were of Etruscan origin, tradition and his name are unanimous in making Numa himself Sabine, not Etruscan. There's no tradition whatsoever about his mother or her name; the only tradition about his parents is that his father was Pompo Pompilius. But that belongs in the article about the Pompilii, not the Pomponii.

Quintus Pomponius Musa may be well-worth discussing in his own article, but there's no reason to discuss him in detail in an article about the gens. He's not an important historical figure; the Pomponii already discussed in the article are more important. The lead paragraph should be a short explanation of the gens and its significance. A detailed discussion of its origin comes under a separate heading, as does a list of members. Normally only the most famous member, or the first to appear in history, are mentioned in the lead paragraph.

Of course, it's impossible to determine whether your name descends from the ancient Pomponii, or from some other source that just happened to resemble it. In the late Empire old names were recycled with little regard to the classical usage of personal name and surname. So it could have been revived at a very early time without any connection to the gens. But it could also have arisen at some other point and for an entirely different reason during the middle ages. Of course I wish you much success in your ongoing work. Good luck! P Aculeius (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Earthology

The article Earthology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unsourced WP:Neologism. Nothing found on google to match this definition

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Earthology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Earthology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. noq (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you from editing. A review of your contributions has shown me that virtually all your contributions have consisted of unsourced, confused speculation and/or plagiarized, ripped-out-of-context copied text from outdated sources. In particular your most recent article Earthology clearly suggests you are not here to build an encyclopedia in any rational sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Inventor

II really dont understand, I am an inventore and try to teach a new concept. I dont agree you block me.