User talk:Trompeta
Ta-ra-ta-ra-ta-taaaa !! - I sono Trompeta! - Mille Grazia!
Regarding your evidence section, at this point it appears to be a lot of arguments/conclusions but little in the way of actual evidence. I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration guide#Evidence for a better understanding of what is most effective in convincing the Arbitration Committee. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I removed your section because it did not contain any evidence pertinent to the case. It appears to be just arguments/conclusions. Dchall1's evidence, which you linked to, is much closer to what the Arbitration Committee desires. Therefore, after discussion with another clerk, I left his section. Please let me know if this helps. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Celts
[edit]I think the section was removed because the way it is written is misleading. It says that the word Celt is a modern construct, which is not the case. The only 'modern' construct concerned is the application of the word to the ancient peoples of the British isles, not the whole of Europe. It's reasonable to have a discussion about the reach of the word Celt, in historical and contemporary usage, but we shouldn't confuse issues. The reason why the Ancient Britons and Irish are referred to as Celts is that their languages are categorised within the Celtic group. That's the same reason that the Norwegians are categorised as Germanic, even though ancient writers never, as far as I'm aware, called them Germans. Of course we don't normally call them 'Germans' today either. They are still nevertheless part of the Germanic peoples. Paul B (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)