"

I have not created article List of Roman Emperors born in Serbia but nationalistic SPA account user:KaiSuTeknonBrute. My only job has been moving article to another name, so you can delete article  

 BC AND AD 

The reason I changed this is because simply he was a Roman and Greek and Italy and Greece use the AD and BC system.

Also why not just change the dates back why also delete all the names?

Also you need to stop acting like you are one of wikipedia's staff because you are not.

(  )

Is Deor out to lunch ?

Here Logicus posts a serious query about Deor's fitness to be meddling with Wikipedia articles that is posted on the Celestial Spheres Talk page, for a serious answer by Deor that he has not provided in spite or repeated challenges to do so.

Police Constable Deor ? Logicus says No !

Imperious User Deor has elected to set himself up as Police Constable Wikipedian who polices Wikipedia and reports breaches of what he imagines to be its rules and breaches of its rules to its administrators. Here we present Deor's latest arrogant imperious mistaken comments posted to Logicus's User Talk page for everybody to read 

""[edit] Celestial spheres redux
I'm going to revert your additions and deletions once again. Repeatedly adding material that is not relevant to the article's topic and, in essence, constitutes an original synthesis of material in primary sources is disruptive and impermissible in Wikipedia. Any further disruption at this article will be brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as you have repeatedly attempted to insert your original research and personal interpretations of historical sources into multiple articles. This is an encyclopedia that relies on information gleaned from secondary sources, not a forum for posting what appears to individuals to be ""logically"" inferrable from the historical record. Deor (talk) 

Retrieved from ""http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Logicus"" ""

But on the cardinal issue here of relevance, it should be self-evident to one and all that any material on the causes of the motions of the celestial spheres, such as the theory of Buridan, is of absolutely central relevance to any article on the celestial spheres and their motions. And yet Wiki User Deor repeatedly seeks to deny this, and under repeated challenge to provide any rational justification for this unjustifiable POV, repeatedly fails to do so.  Why is this ? Should User Deor be banned from meddling with Wikipedia articles because of his severe anti-educational tendency. [Watch this space !]  Logicus

 Thanks 

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =)    

Is Deor wrong about Ptolemy's alleged instrumentalism ?

In connection with Logicus's 27 June proposed deletion of the Celestial spheres article's 
following claim 

“Through the use of the epicycle, eccentric, and equant, this model of compound circular motions could account for all the irregularities of a planet's apparent movements in the sky.[7][8]

as either false or meaningless and its replacement with a meaningful and historically truthful assessment of Ptolemy's achievement, on the 22nd of June in Celestial spheres Talk,  you claimed it is a possibility ""that Ptolemy, for one, didn't devote much thought to the problems and consequences associated with positing the physical existence of spheres, epicyles, etc. Deor (talk) ""

Logicus then pointed out to you that it seems this is not a possibility on the evidence of Ptolemy's Planetary Hypotheses, and also provided a quotation from the Introduction of Langermann's 1990 English language edition of Alhazen's Configuration of the World , which quotes Ptolemy's views in his Planetary Hypotheses on the two possible physical forms of the celestial bodies, as follows:

""In Book II [of Planetary Hypotheses] Ptolemy undertakes to establish the shapes of the bodies that carry out the heavenly motions....He states 

'For each of these motions, which are different in quantity or kind, there is a body that moves freely on poles and in space and which has a special place...'

Ptolemy then postulates two possible paths of approach to the physical explanation of the workings of the cosmos. 

'The first of them is to assign a whole sphere to each motion, either hollow like the spheres th