User talk:Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus - Revision history

Decimus Aurelius Ingeniarius: Added HP tag

2024-06-28T12:10:15Z

Added HP tag

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:10, 28 June 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{HistoricalDocument}}
	{{Cultus Task Force\|Member}}		{{Cultus Task Force\|Member}}

Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus at 10:37, 5 February 2013

2013-02-05T10:37:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:37, 5 February 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Cultus Task Force\|Member}}		{{Cultus Task Force\|Member}}
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+

	==Wiki Editor Toolbar==		==Wiki Editor Toolbar==

	Optime mi Q. Metelle, why did you have to remove the newly added editorial toolbar? It seemed to me a fine addition, useful for making edits easier. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 11:36, 5 February 2013 (CET)		Optime mi Q. Metelle, why did you have to remove the newly added editorial toolbar? It seemed to me a fine addition, useful for making edits easier. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 11:36, 5 February 2013 (CET)

Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus at 10:36, 5 February 2013

2013-02-05T10:36:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:36, 5 February 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Cultus Task Force\|Member}}		{{Cultus Task Force\|Member}}
		+
		+	==Wiki Editor Toolbar==
		+
		+	Optime mi Q. Metelle, why did you have to remove the newly added editorial toolbar? It seemed to me a fine addition, useful for making edits easier. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 11:36, 5 February 2013 (CET)

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus: cleanup; return to CTF

2012-09-06T08:24:00Z

cleanup; return to CTF

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:24, 6 September 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~== Pontifex maximus ==~~	+	{{Cultus Task Force\|Member}}
−		+
−	''Salve, amice!'' For the time being, we have to let M. Piscinus be recorded with the title ''pontifex maximus'', until we do not elect another ''pontifex maximus''. M. Antonius most clearly refused it, and the second elected was M. Piscinus. So, there are two possibilities: '''1''') the ''pontifex maximus'' remained the sitting one (because Antonius refused it), '''2''') if the first elected refused it, the second one got it (Piscinus). But anyway, and by all means, this question is dubious at best, and the best we can do is to move with the common sense, common opinion, as our citizenry and the magistrates still dealt with, negotiated with, and called him as ''pontifex maximus'' after the last voting, up to this day. Let's focus instead on the '''clear''' thing: an election is in process now, which will give a '''clear''' result: that should be what we shall record here. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|~~Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 10:55, 8 November 2010 (CET)~~	+
−	* I agree with Lentulus with all. The current new PM election will solve all.[[User:Titus Iulius Sabinus\|Titus Iulius Sabinus]] 12:11, 8 November 2010 (CET)	+
−		+
−	~~== Thank you... ==~~	+
−		+
−	~~...for doing [[Tax rate MMDCCLXIV\|this]], Q. Metelle!~~	+
−	~~--[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 13:57, 31 August 2011 (CEST)~~	+

Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus: Thank you...

2011-08-31T11:57:07Z

Thank you...

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:57, 31 August 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	''Salve, amice!'' For the time being, we have to let M. Piscinus be recorded with the title ''pontifex maximus'', until we do not elect another ''pontifex maximus''. M. Antonius most clearly refused it, and the second elected was M. Piscinus. So, there are two possibilities: '''1''') the ''pontifex maximus'' remained the sitting one (because Antonius refused it), '''2''') if the first elected refused it, the second one got it (Piscinus). But anyway, and by all means, this question is dubious at best, and the best we can do is to move with the common sense, common opinion, as our citizenry and the magistrates still dealt with, negotiated with, and called him as ''pontifex maximus'' after the last voting, up to this day. Let's focus instead on the '''clear''' thing: an election is in process now, which will give a '''clear''' result: that should be what we shall record here. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 10:55, 8 November 2010 (CET)		''Salve, amice!'' For the time being, we have to let M. Piscinus be recorded with the title ''pontifex maximus'', until we do not elect another ''pontifex maximus''. M. Antonius most clearly refused it, and the second elected was M. Piscinus. So, there are two possibilities: '''1''') the ''pontifex maximus'' remained the sitting one (because Antonius refused it), '''2''') if the first elected refused it, the second one got it (Piscinus). But anyway, and by all means, this question is dubious at best, and the best we can do is to move with the common sense, common opinion, as our citizenry and the magistrates still dealt with, negotiated with, and called him as ''pontifex maximus'' after the last voting, up to this day. Let's focus instead on the '''clear''' thing: an election is in process now, which will give a '''clear''' result: that should be what we shall record here. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 10:55, 8 November 2010 (CET)
	* I agree with Lentulus with all. The current new PM election will solve all.[[User:Titus Iulius Sabinus\|Titus Iulius Sabinus]] 12:11, 8 November 2010 (CET)		* I agree with Lentulus with all. The current new PM election will solve all.[[User:Titus Iulius Sabinus\|Titus Iulius Sabinus]] 12:11, 8 November 2010 (CET)
		+
		+	== Thank you... ==
		+
		+	...for doing [[Tax rate MMDCCLXIV\|this]], Q. Metelle!
		+	--[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 13:57, 31 August 2011 (CEST)

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus: rmv task force

2010-12-02T01:08:28Z

rmv task force

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:08, 2 December 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~{{Cultus Task Force\|Member}}~~
−
	== Pontifex maximus ==		== Pontifex maximus ==

	''Salve, amice!'' For the time being, we have to let M. Piscinus be recorded with the title ''pontifex maximus'', until we do not elect another ''pontifex maximus''. M. Antonius most clearly refused it, and the second elected was M. Piscinus. So, there are two possibilities: '''1''') the ''pontifex maximus'' remained the sitting one (because Antonius refused it), '''2''') if the first elected refused it, the second one got it (Piscinus). But anyway, and by all means, this question is dubious at best, and the best we can do is to move with the common sense, common opinion, as our citizenry and the magistrates still dealt with, negotiated with, and called him as ''pontifex maximus'' after the last voting, up to this day. Let's focus instead on the '''clear''' thing: an election is in process now, which will give a '''clear''' result: that should be what we shall record here. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 10:55, 8 November 2010 (CET)		''Salve, amice!'' For the time being, we have to let M. Piscinus be recorded with the title ''pontifex maximus'', until we do not elect another ''pontifex maximus''. M. Antonius most clearly refused it, and the second elected was M. Piscinus. So, there are two possibilities: '''1''') the ''pontifex maximus'' remained the sitting one (because Antonius refused it), '''2''') if the first elected refused it, the second one got it (Piscinus). But anyway, and by all means, this question is dubious at best, and the best we can do is to move with the common sense, common opinion, as our citizenry and the magistrates still dealt with, negotiated with, and called him as ''pontifex maximus'' after the last voting, up to this day. Let's focus instead on the '''clear''' thing: an election is in process now, which will give a '''clear''' result: that should be what we shall record here. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 10:55, 8 November 2010 (CET)
	* I agree with Lentulus with all. The current new PM election will solve all.[[User:Titus Iulius Sabinus\|Titus Iulius Sabinus]] 12:11, 8 November 2010 (CET)		* I agree with Lentulus with all. The current new PM election will solve all.[[User:Titus Iulius Sabinus\|Titus Iulius Sabinus]] 12:11, 8 November 2010 (CET)

Titus Iulius Sabinus: my answer

2010-11-08T11:11:17Z

my answer

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:11, 8 November 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	''Salve, amice!'' For the time being, we have to let M. Piscinus be recorded with the title ''pontifex maximus'', until we do not elect another ''pontifex maximus''. M. Antonius most clearly refused it, and the second elected was M. Piscinus. So, there are two possibilities: '''1''') the ''pontifex maximus'' remained the sitting one (because Antonius refused it), '''2''') if the first elected refused it, the second one got it (Piscinus). But anyway, and by all means, this question is dubious at best, and the best we can do is to move with the common sense, common opinion, as our citizenry and the magistrates still dealt with, negotiated with, and called him as ''pontifex maximus'' after the last voting, up to this day. Let's focus instead on the '''clear''' thing: an election is in process now, which will give a '''clear''' result: that should be what we shall record here. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 10:55, 8 November 2010 (CET)		''Salve, amice!'' For the time being, we have to let M. Piscinus be recorded with the title ''pontifex maximus'', until we do not elect another ''pontifex maximus''. M. Antonius most clearly refused it, and the second elected was M. Piscinus. So, there are two possibilities: '''1''') the ''pontifex maximus'' remained the sitting one (because Antonius refused it), '''2''') if the first elected refused it, the second one got it (Piscinus). But anyway, and by all means, this question is dubious at best, and the best we can do is to move with the common sense, common opinion, as our citizenry and the magistrates still dealt with, negotiated with, and called him as ''pontifex maximus'' after the last voting, up to this day. Let's focus instead on the '''clear''' thing: an election is in process now, which will give a '''clear''' result: that should be what we shall record here. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 10:55, 8 November 2010 (CET)
		+	* I agree with Lentulus with all. The current new PM election will solve all.[[User:Titus Iulius Sabinus\|Titus Iulius Sabinus]] 12:11, 8 November 2010 (CET)

Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus at 09:56, 8 November 2010

2010-11-08T09:56:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:56, 8 November 2010
Line 3:		Line 3:
	== Pontifex maximus ==		== Pontifex maximus ==

−	''Salve, amice''! For the time being, we have to let M. Piscinus be recorded with the title ''pontifex maximus'', until we do not elect another ''pontifex maximus''. M. Antonius most clearly refused it, and the second elected was M. Piscinus. So, there are two possibilities: '''1''') the ''pontifex maximus'' remained the sitting one (because Antonius refused it), '''2''') if the first elected refused it, the second one got it (Piscinus). But anyway, and by all means, this question is dubious at best, and the best we can do is to move with the common sense, common opinion, as our citizenry and the magistrates still dealt with, negotiated with, and called him as ''pontifex maximus'' after the last voting, up to this day. Let's focus instead on the '''clear''' thing: an election is in process now, which will give a ''clear'' result: that should be what we shall record here. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 10:55, 8 November 2010 (CET)	+	''Salve, amice!'' For the time being, we have to let M. Piscinus be recorded with the title ''pontifex maximus'', until we do not elect another ''pontifex maximus''. M. Antonius most clearly refused it, and the second elected was M. Piscinus. So, there are two possibilities: '''1''') the ''pontifex maximus'' remained the sitting one (because Antonius refused it), '''2''') if the first elected refused it, the second one got it (Piscinus). But anyway, and by all means, this question is dubious at best, and the best we can do is to move with the common sense, common opinion, as our citizenry and the magistrates still dealt with, negotiated with, and called him as ''pontifex maximus'' after the last voting, up to this day. Let's focus instead on the '''clear''' thing: an election is in process now, which will give a '''clear''' result: that should be what we shall record here. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 10:55, 8 November 2010 (CET)

Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus: Pontifex maximus

2010-11-08T09:55:16Z

Pontifex maximus

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:55, 8 November 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Cultus Task Force\|Member}}		{{Cultus Task Force\|Member}}
		+
		+	== Pontifex maximus ==
		+
		+	''Salve, amice''! For the time being, we have to let M. Piscinus be recorded with the title ''pontifex maximus'', until we do not elect another ''pontifex maximus''. M. Antonius most clearly refused it, and the second elected was M. Piscinus. So, there are two possibilities: '''1''') the ''pontifex maximus'' remained the sitting one (because Antonius refused it), '''2''') if the first elected refused it, the second one got it (Piscinus). But anyway, and by all means, this question is dubious at best, and the best we can do is to move with the common sense, common opinion, as our citizenry and the magistrates still dealt with, negotiated with, and called him as ''pontifex maximus'' after the last voting, up to this day. Let's focus instead on the '''clear''' thing: an election is in process now, which will give a ''clear'' result: that should be what we shall record here. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 10:55, 8 November 2010 (CET)

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus: cleaning time

2010-03-14T03:46:29Z

cleaning time

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:46, 14 March 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Cultus Task Force\|Member}}		{{Cultus Task Force\|Member}}
−
−	~~== Calendar articles ==~~
−
−	~~Salve, Q. Metelle! I think we should have to make some order between the many general articles on calendar. It's quite a mess. We have now:~~
−
−	*[[Calendar]]
−	*[[Calendar (Nova Roma)]]
−	*[[Roman calendar]]
−	*[[Fasti]]
−
−	~~Instead of 4 we should have 2, one for ancient Rome, one for Nova Roma. What do you think?~~
−	~~--[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 12:15, 5 January 2009 (CET)~~
−
−	:Adsentior, Cn. Lentule! Apud [[Fasti_MMDCCLXII\|Fastos]] me uti pagina [[Roman calendar\|de calendario Romano]] ad dies Atros nundinasque definiendos. Fortasse paginae de calendario Romano et [[Fasti\|de fastis]] ad paginam de calendario moueatur, ut solum paginae de calendario et [[Calendar (Nova Roma)\|de calendario nouo]] remaneant? Quo modo paginae duae nobis habentur, una de calendario antiquo, una de nouo. -- [[User:Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus\|Q·CAEC·MET·POST]] 20:26, 5 January 2009 (CET)
−
−	::Tibi Anglice respondeo, Metelle Pie, ut omnes qui hoc colloquium sequuntur nos intellegant, nam perpauci sunt editores hujus aranei Latine loquentes vel scribentes. I thought a lot on these articles and I think that all of them is necessary in one or another way. [[Calendar]] is just a page that shows the calendar. It should be pointing to our current calendar. [[Calendar (Nova Roma)]] should describe how the Nova Roman calendar is composed, how we reconstruct it, what the authorities are on calendar issues etc. [[Roman calendar]] describes the ancient roman calendar. [[Fasti]] perhaps could be merged in [[Calendar]], or redirected, but it is good if it remains a disambiguation page. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 17:02, 12 January 2009 (CET)
−
−	~~== Your candidacy ==~~
−
−	Mi Metelle, I am not authorized to let your candidacy on the page since you were not accepted by the Tribunes because of the age requirement. Sorry for that! Vale! --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 02:15, 25 October 2009 (CET)
−
−	~~== Cato's candidacy ==~~
−
−	This has come to my mind after my previous comment: was ever Cato's candidacy officially announced and declared, then accepted by the consuls? If not, we can't put it on the page, until he declares his candidacy officially. Vale iterum. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 02:23, 25 October 2009 (CET)
−
−	~~== Style Guide ==~~
−
−	~~I have read your message, amice, and I'll comment your suggestions in the NRWiki mailing list!~~
−
−	~~Vale! --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 23:17, 4 November 2009 (CET)~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:57, 31 August 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	''Salve, amice!'' For the time being, we have to let M. Piscinus be recorded with the title ''pontifex maximus'', until we do not elect another ''pontifex maximus''. M. Antonius most clearly refused it, and the second elected was M. Piscinus. So, there are two possibilities: '''1''') the ''pontifex maximus'' remained the sitting one (because Antonius refused it), '''2''') if the first elected refused it, the second one got it (Piscinus). But anyway, and by all means, this question is dubious at best, and the best we can do is to move with the common sense, common opinion, as our citizenry and the magistrates still dealt with, negotiated with, and called him as ''pontifex maximus'' after the last voting, up to this day. Let's focus instead on the '''clear''' thing: an election is in process now, which will give a '''clear''' result: that should be what we shall record here. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 10:55, 8 November 2010 (CET)		''Salve, amice!'' For the time being, we have to let M. Piscinus be recorded with the title ''pontifex maximus'', until we do not elect another ''pontifex maximus''. M. Antonius most clearly refused it, and the second elected was M. Piscinus. So, there are two possibilities: '''1''') the ''pontifex maximus'' remained the sitting one (because Antonius refused it), '''2''') if the first elected refused it, the second one got it (Piscinus). But anyway, and by all means, this question is dubious at best, and the best we can do is to move with the common sense, common opinion, as our citizenry and the magistrates still dealt with, negotiated with, and called him as ''pontifex maximus'' after the last voting, up to this day. Let's focus instead on the '''clear''' thing: an election is in process now, which will give a '''clear''' result: that should be what we shall record here. --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 10:55, 8 November 2010 (CET)
	* I agree with Lentulus with all. The current new PM election will solve all.[[User:Titus Iulius Sabinus\|Titus Iulius Sabinus]] 12:11, 8 November 2010 (CET)		* I agree with Lentulus with all. The current new PM election will solve all.[[User:Titus Iulius Sabinus\|Titus Iulius Sabinus]] 12:11, 8 November 2010 (CET)
		+
		+	== Thank you... ==
		+
		+	...for doing [[Tax rate MMDCCLXIV\|this]], Q. Metelle!
		+	--[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus\|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 13:57, 31 August 2011 (CEST)