Talk:Third Macedonian War

message: It would appear that the notability of Agathagetus is directly related to this war, which is the basis for my suggesting a merger.  I would not suggest that Agathagetus be deleted if not merged, because I am of the opinion (recently formed and still malleable) that persons known by name and role from ancient times are inherently notable ... though there is that problem of a New York Yellow Pages being found in the Year 3000 and all persons being added to the Wikipedia of the time based on that sentiment, hmm. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion: Agathagetus 

message: To Whom It May Concern;
I don’t mean to hurt your feelings, but you are one truly wretched historian.  I say this without any modicum of understanding or restraint, mainly from the fear that any efforts on my end to temper the vitriol of my invective might inadvertently provide you with something in the way of consolation, and my grandest nightmare is that you will continue to persevere in your efforts while under the misguided assumption that with the passage of time, your middling abilities will improve.  I can readily assure you that they will not.  I’ve seen all that I need to see.  
This rant was admittedly a long time in the making.   Throughout the year 2016 A.D., I have found myself the unwilling participant of an intermittent game of cat and mouse, as my valiant attempts to supplement my limited knowledge of Hellenic Greece through Wikepedia’s terse, albeit generally informative, articles have been continually thwarted by yours truly.  On multiple occasions, just as I was on the cusp of reading a passage I had only glanced at previously, I have been chagrined to find the tidy, purposeful narratives I’ve come to expect had been replaced by a barrage of dense and torturous prose, serving no apparent objective other than to flummox and bewilder.      
It was your incompetent attempt to explain the vagaries of the Third Macedonian War – admittedly not a popular topic of conversation these days – that finally pushed me over the edge, and became the impetus for me to get off my sorry ass, and register with Wikepedia, so that I can attempt to rectify your felonious assault on avocational scholarship.  As per usual, prior to your prolific revisions, the article was brief, yet functional.  It said what it needed to say.  And although I had never thoroughly scrutinized the narrative in question, I had glanced at it on several occasions, and took comfort and solace in the simple fact of knowing that it was there, and that one day, it would come in handy for my studies.  Alas, by the time I was ready to read it, I come to find you had already worked your perfidious magic.  The entry had been ruined, replaced by a verbose and misleading tome littered with grammatical errors.  
Prior to writing this scathing denunciation of your respective abilities, or lack thereof, I squandered a fair amount of time repetitiously admonishing myself for my own inadvertent role in this pitiful state of affairs.  For I confess that I am indeed partially to blame, and am Man Enough to own up and readily admit it.  For upon finishing my thorough perusal of your article – because reading the thing verbatim would constitute some primitive form of torture, I couldn’t help but notice that it had been last edited on Sunday, August 21, at 3:45.  I read the offending entry in question on the evening of Wednesday, September 7.   Grasping this knowledge, I couldn’t help but became incensed, knowing that if only I had been more assiduous in pursing my hobby, you know, if I had less of a life or something, I could have read the passage before you butchered the damn thing, and might have actually learned a thing or two.  Instead, all I’ve garnered for my efforts is a bad case of agita and an overwhelming desire to kick someone’s ass. 
Like so many others, I use Wikepedia mainly to supplement my limited knowledge of the world.  In this particular instance, I was hoping to use Wikepedia to clarify some notes I took while reading Livy.  Judging from your work, it appears that I did a better job comprehending the subject on my own.  Which is why I find your contributions to the public domain so exasperating, as the only thing your edits have succeeded in accomplishing is the further obfuscation of an already complicated subject.  I can’t think of a better way to discourage someone from seeking out additional information on an obscure topic.  But if there is a better way, I’m sure you’ll find it.  
In closing, I’d like to suggest that this, Sir, is why legitimate scholars with doctorates go on to teach and write books, both noble endeavors and valid conduits for disseminating knowledge to others.  Unfortunately for the rest of us, those like yourself who fall a bit short of the mark, end up summarizing abstruse minutiae on Wikepedia, where your misguided efforts only result in making convoluted subjects even less accessible to ordinary people of average intellect – ironically, the very constituency Wikepedia is designed to serve. 
So in the interests of doing the entire world a favor, for the love of a higher God, I implore you to cease dabbling with recreational scholarship, and return to spending your free time at Barnes and Noble combing through books on military history that you have no intention of buying.  Whatever it is you wind up doing, I’d recommend you quit messing around with Wikepedia and leave this crap to the people who know what they’re doing.   We’ll all be better off – yourself included.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntoninusPius (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: HEAR HEAR Lucy Skywalker (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Open Letter to an Anonymous Wikepedia Editor 

message: This a very short story and I read it in an hour Ur momUntitled (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think that they should add more content 

message: A close look at this article reveals that the Macedonian king's name is severely overused. It is one of the factors that make this article a not-so-great read. I'll try to correct it, but it's too much for one editor to handle. Could some others assist in this? Thanks, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say don't bother. The entire article needs to be rewritten. T8612 (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word 'Perseus' 

message: I have added a secondary source citation in the 'War in Illyria' section of this article, which is from a book written by Paul Burton on Rome and the Third Macedonian War - which was published by Cambridge University Press in 2017 to give this article a few more secondary source citations which is needed in this article. Further, I have amended the statistics on the number of calvary Genthius had, which was listed as 500 but I have found in other sources to be 50 instead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiki9102 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation and Statistics  

message: I have added a reference to The Encyclopaedia of Ancient Battles, that in the lead section to aid the lack of citations. Chapter 37 is a reliable source on the Third Macedonian War and will also help decrease the heavy reliance on primary sources throughout the article.````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inactive Ravioli (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of Sources 

message: I added another source in the reference page for further reading and also to further verify the information provided. MellowBelle (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another reference