User talk:T8612

Hello, T8612, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SpartaN (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just received what you sent. You're a star. Haploidavey (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For support, assistance and input both asked for and unasked. For quietly but consistently improving articles. For making Wikipedia more accurate. For making other editors' work a little easier. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wonder if you can help. I realise that this is out of your specialist timeframe. This article has the sentence: "Four solidi from his reign have been recovered as far from the Byzantine Empire as China." Do you know if this is accurate, and if it is, what might be a RS? (Currently the paragraph has Pyatnitsky, Yuri (2006-01-01). "New Evidence for Byzantine Activity in the Caucasus During the Reign of the Emperor Anastasius I". American Journal of Numismatics (1989–). 18: 113–122. JSTOR 43580526. as a reference.) And do you know if there is an image of a solidus of Anastasius I available? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know about this Chinese hoard, but it doesn't sound wrong (I don't have access to this JSTOR article though). Here is a solidus of Anastasius. T8612 (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcus Fabius Ambustus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ab Urbe Condita Libri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catilinarian conspiracy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've cited this to an inscription from CAH, which unfortunately is not something I can examine despite having been approved for access months ago. But I have to ask, is this what the source says, or are you inferring a possible Etruscan origin from the inscription? Normally I wouldn't nitpick about synthesis with something that sounds fairly obvious. But I can't remember a single source credibly claiming an Etruscan origin for this praenomen. As far as I know, it's only ever described as Oscan, although the fact that it occurs in Latin from the very earliest period suggests that it was at least naturalized, if not native. Latin and Oscan come from a common source, however; Etruscan is unrelated. So while it might be worth noting that it occurs in an early Etruscan inscription (as do many other Latin and Oscan names), I wouldn't suggest that it's of Etruscan origin unless the source clearly states that this is a possibility. P Aculeius (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drummond says that the inscription is perhaps the earliest known in Etruscan, while the article on the Oscan language says the earliest inscriptions date from the 5th century BC, so I "inferred an Etruscan origin" as you put it (I only put the reference on the first sentence as a result). Drummond cites a source for the inscription, which I haven't checked though.T8612 (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. Seeing the inscription in context helps to evaluate its significance for this article. I would say that although the name occurs in a very early Etruscan inscription (it also occurs in one of the earliest Latin inscriptions), there is still no indication that it was an Etruscan name. Nearly all regular Latin praenomina occur in Etruscan inscriptions in Etruscan form, as do a number of Oscan praenomina. What is less certain is whether any Etruscan praenomina were adopted into Latin; a number of scholars have proposed Etruscan origins for certain Latin names, but the proposals are widely inconsistent, and to the best of my knowledge based largely on the occurrence of the names in Etruscan inscriptions, which at best is circular reasoning. In particular, Aulus, Publius, Spurius, and Tiberius are all alleged by different sources to be of Etruscan origin, although described as Latin by others. What we rarely see are known Etruscan names occurring in Roman families: there's a Lar(s) Herminius amongst the 5th century BC consuls, but outside of the Kings, no Arruns, no Laris, Vel, Velthur, etc. except in very rare inscriptions occurring with Roman gentilicia. Which makes it seem very improbable that Numerius was of Etruscan origin, although inscriptions of this type clearly show that it was widespread in the earliest period. P Aculeius (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So Numerius there could be a Latin (who received the vase). The inscription could therefore be the earliest mention of a Latin person (and even Italic?), as the earliest inscription in CIL you mention is dated 670-630 BC, and also features a Numerius (spelt Numasioi, CIL 1², 3, with a picture) and a Manius. Perhaps you could add these to the article? T8612 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I've done that. P Aculeius (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know there was an article on the Praeneste fibula.T8612 (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote at Talk:Cleopatra#Ptolemy "Macedonian" not "Macedonian Greek": "Jesus, what is it with Macedonia these days?" The answer is that, back in summer of this year, Greece and the Republic of Macedonia finally reached an agreement to resolve the Macedonia naming dispute that has been going on for the past twenty-seven years. In this agreement, the Republic of Macedonia said it would agree to change its name to the "Republic of North Macedonia" and, in turn, Greece agreed to withdraw its vetoes against Macedonia joining the European Union and NATO. Here is an article from The Washington Post reporting on this: [1]. On September 30 of this year, however, the Republic of Macedonia held a referendum to officially change its name to "Republic of North Macedonia." The referendum failed. Russia is alleged to have interfered in it. These allegations remain unconfirmed, but it is certain that Russia desperately does not want Macedonia to join any western government organizations because Russia still considers the Balkans part of its sphere of influence. Interfering in the referendum would also be entirely consistent with Russia's pattern of behavior. Here is an article talking about the failed referendum from TIME: [2]. In any case, it seems that the proposed name change has stoked up an insane fervor among both Greek and Macedonian nationalists alike and has led many of them to come here on Wikipedia to change articles to match their own nationalistic perspectives. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know about the naming dispute, but it's a bit unreal to see people on both sides vandalising articles on 2300+ years old topics. T8612 (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the bright side, at least it shows that ancient history still really matters, at least to some people, if not necessarily for the right reasons. The great irony is that most polis-dwelling Greeks before the time of Alexander considered the Macedonians archaic and backwards and some even doubted whether they were truly Greek at all, but Greeks today have almost universally come to embrace the ancient Macedonians as not only "Greeks," but as emblems of their own heritage, a fact which, to me at least, seems to show that even the most seemingly insurmountable national differences can be overcome. It is a shame that this history is driving people apart, rather than bringing them together as it should. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may add that it was an error in Stephanus if you wish, but things we are told existed tend to be notable even if they never did or their existence is disputed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my wish, it's what the major academic source on the subject says. We do not have to repeat mistakes of ancient sources. At least mention Hansen & Nielsen' statement on both articles. Carlossuarez46 T8612 (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hansen and Nielsen don't even note it's a mistake on Sephanus' part. It can also have been excluded because it didn't exist in the archaic or classical period - the timeframe addressed by their studies; rather than the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine times that would have been with in Stephanus' ambit. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and Stephanus cites Theopompus for this Alea in Thessaly (see screenshot). When checking Theopompus, there is only a mention of Alea in Arcadia (see screenshot, from Gordon S. Shrimpton, 1991), so it is indeed a mistake from Stephanus. Theopompus also lived in the 4th century BC, so Hansen & Nielsen would have mentioned this city if it existed. @Carlossuarez46: T8612 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that's original research, but put it in the article. We have articles on mistakes of ancient authors (e.g., Anticyra (Locris)) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, T8612. I am a relatively new user, and I am looking to make a contribution within the scope of WikiProject History. I wanted to start with a medium-quality and medium-importance article so I wouldn't screw up anything big. One of the glaring problems with the article (besides the "non-encyclopedic writing style" that was cited when I started to work on the article) was that one of the books in the references section, Empires of Trust, was not listed in the bibliography section. If you want to help me improve the article moving forward, maybe discussion should be continued on the talk page Tplaza64 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article would be quite tough to write as you need to read a vast amount of sources on the subject. If you have just started and still hesitant, perhaps you could start with an easier article on the period? Examples of articles that need improvement are Cimbrian War, Sertorian War, Liberators' civil war, etc. Otherwise, please state your plans in the :talk of Rise of Rome before starting. @Tplaza64: T8612 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that would most likely be a good idea. I have gone ahead and retracted the project template from the page and will leave it alone until I am a more skilled editor. Tplaza64 (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Aulus Manlius Torquatus Atticus.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Excellent article - very high-quality construction and referencing; interesting too! Well done.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you made a number of changes to the List of Roman consuls, based on a paper written by this author. Could you provide more bibliographical information about this paper, such as the periodical the article appeared in, & the volume & date of its publication? -- llywrch (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch:Hi, I don't really know how to edit the biblio template used on this page, so I didn't add the full refs. Here they are:

• Lily Ross Taylor and T. Robert S. Broughton, "The Order of the Two Consuls' Names in the Yearly Lists", Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 19 (1949), pp. 3-14.
• ——, "New Indications of Augustan Editing in the Capitoline Fasti", Classical Philology, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Apr., 1951), pp. 73–80.
• —— and T. Robert S. Broughton, "The Order of the Consuls' Names in Official Republican Lists", Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, vol. 17, part 2 (Apr., 1968), pp. 166-172. T8612 (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thank you for the very thorough review of Annales. I appreciate that you really dug down in your critique, which I truly believe has made the article better.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Perhaps you could look for promoting it to FA. T8612 (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)== Congratulations from the Military History Project ==[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

He used at least one other name to create hoax articles: Dgarq. (And I suspect there is at least one more alias he used.) I identified about 17 articles that he created that are likely hoaxes, such as Marcus Pupienus Maximus. I have not have a chance to do a proper double-checking then nominating them for deletion before now. If anyone is interested in doing the tedious part of the work, I can share my list. -- llywrch (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please share your list. T8612 (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I checked the current status of the names on my list & discovered I had addressed most of them. Only 8 remain, which are:

• Marcus Pupienus Maximus, father of the Emperor Pupienus. (I haven't been able to find any verification of his existence beyond the Historia Augusta)
• Appius Claudius Pulcher (triumvir monetalis)
• Lucius Clodius Tineius Pupienus Bassus
• Dexter (Consul 263) -- the details on this person are dubious
• Eparchius Philagrius, bishop of Cyrpus
• Quintus Flavius Egnatius Placidus Severus
• Philagrius (prefect of Egypt) -- the details beyond his tenure in Egypt are dubious
• Rufius Viventius Gallus

Good luck with them. I honestly hope all of them prove to be real people. -- llywrch (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: Thanks. Appius Claudius Pulcher (triumvir monetalis) is a real person, although I would delete the article as he was not notable enough.

The real question here is whether Christian Settipani's book is a reliable source. Andrew Dalby seemed to doubt it. I haven't been able to read it, so I cannot say. T8612 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My views on Settipani are somewhat conflicted. At first, due to G.-M. Cupertino's misuse of his primary monograph, I shared Dalby's opinion about Settipani: his work was a collection of fabrications & sloppy research & entirely unreliable. However, as I continued my research I found him referred to in the academic secondary with a certain degree of respect -- albeit I have yet to encounter one academic who agrees with his conclusions. (He tends to accept possible genealogical connections than most experts.) I also found an errata he wrote on the Web, & in that work he came across as sober & intelligent. So Settipani may express a notable alternative POV, if not actually be reliable. (But I'd perform much more research before I'd actually accept him as reliable as, say, Ronald Syme.)

My own opinion is that wherever he is cited with a page number -- which occurs maybe half a dozen times -- what we have is Settipani's own opinion & may be reliable. But when he is cited simply by his book, no page(s) provided -- which is the case in the vast majority of cases -- it is very likely one of G.-M. Cupertino's fabrications/hoaxes. Nevertheless, that person may actually have existed, & Cupertino simply invented some, most or all of the details about the personage, so it's still worth the time to check the material rather than delete the article. -- llywrch (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T8612, Llywrch, this Quintus Caecilius Metellus (tribune) may be added to the list. The only (vaguely) sourced bit seems to be a duplicate of Metellus Nepos (consul 57 BC), the rest presumably a hoax. I tentatively nominated the article for deletion; it would be good if any of you could confirm or deny his existence. Avis11 (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Jacobs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City of God (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, atm I can't do anything because I'm studying for exams at school and I'm not that active on Wiki... you can try asking on Project:Rome on the italian Wiki, it's the first place I thought of, haven't been active in quite a while, sorry for that :^( --Claudio Dario Il Bar 16:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do that, thanks. @Claudio Dario: T8612 (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how that happened! Paul August ☎ 16:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aulus Manlius Torquatus Atticus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Haukurth -- Haukurth (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Anti-paganism policies of the early Byzantine Empire, which you proposed for deletion. A brief glance at the PROD appears to show non-duplicative Byzantine information. A merger may be appropriate, rather than outright deletion. See article's talk page for details.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! P Aculeius (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Aulus Manlius Torquatus Atticus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aulus Manlius Torquatus Atticus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Haukurth -- Haukurth (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, T8612. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Opinion polling for a second Brexit referendum".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to mark the sections as {{under construction}} and I still had pending to add the sources. I'll end it this evening once I'm back at home. Feel free to correct the language (English is not my native language and I tend to do more typos that I'd like).--FAR (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR: A featured article is supposed to be finished in some way, so the banner is a bit out of place. The best way to edit a FA is to make a new section detailing your intentions on its talk page. If you're new, I suggest you to start with articles that are not FA, such as the article on Philip II. T8612 (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a never ending discussing, but for many Wikipedia is a work in progress. It was indeed a very good article, but I got a bit surprised that Philips wife and brother-in-law first appeared in 342 without prior references to precedent developments. I found some minor omissions like that and I didn't realized it was a featured article.

I just added some references from scholars. Talbert's article about the topic actually condenses most of the added information whilst de:A. John Graham actually reviewed the bibliography about the rest when discussing Thassos. I'll check a bit if I can reference better without adding many single-use sources or non-English texts.

Anyways feel free to correct anything.--FAR (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a bit to switch from Spanish sources to English books but I added the last ones I wanted. Piracy in the Ancient World described more in detail the Thassos issue (I kept Graham as a secondary source to address the academic debate about the different interpretations of its outcome). Also I added explicit sources for minor points (agrianes service in the Macedonian army, integration of both Lyncestid and Elimeia).

I think the only sentence still needing an explicit support is the reference to Philip's and Olympia marriage. I'm tracking the proper citation (Guy Thompson Griffith is the one that suggested that Orestis was Olympia's dowry but I'd prefer to add both the primary and secondary mentions to that with some note about the modern academic view).--FAR (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

Thank you for your recent comments about how to improve Roman Republic Consul info boxes. I did not know what month they started as consuls. I will definitely be implementing some of your suggestions to all of the consuls infoboxes. BigRed606 (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. I have question, what would have been the time for the consul during the 6th century BC (509–501) would it have been March 15th as well? Thanks again BigRed606 (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BigRed606:Yes, all consuls before 154 BC. As we cannot be sure whether it was the same for other magistrates, including dictators and consular tribunes, it's better to only add this precision for consuls. T8612 (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Publius Cornelius Scipio (consul 16 BC), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scipio Nasica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello T8612, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Featured article review Talk notices given view edit
Diocletianic Persecution 2020-05-03 Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky 2020-05-22 Underwater diving 2020-09-15 Józef Piłsudski 2020-09-25, 2021-08-07 The Supremes 2020-11-02 Supernatural (season 1) 2020-11-02 Supernatural (season 2) 2020-11-02 Kahaani 2020-11-18 2023-02-25 Major depressive disorder 2020-11-20 2022-08-18 Death of Ian Tomlinson 2020-11-21 India 2020-11-29 and 2023-11-28 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash 2020-11-30 Tumbler Ridge 2020-12-26 Glacier National Park (U.S.) 2020-12-30 Ivan Bagramyan 2021-02-21 Bird 2021-02-21 Hamilton, Ontario 2021-02-22 Comet Hyakutake 2021-02-22 Mary Wollstonecraft 2021-03-03 Postage stamps of Ireland 2021-03-11, 2023-03-25 The Joy of Sect 2021-04-08 The World Ends with You 2021-04-23 Defense of the Ancients 2021-06-10 Dwarf planet 2021-08-14 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial 2021-09-26 Robert Garran 2021-10-09 Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia 2021-11-27 Hurricane Edith (1971) 2021-12-04 Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne 2021-12-05 Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon 2021-12-05 Hurricane Dean 2021-12-05 Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma 2021-12-05 Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan 2021-12-05 Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America 2021-12-05 Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004) 2021-12-05 Tropical Storm Henri (2003) 2021-12-05 Tropical Storm Edouard (2002) 2021-12-05 Hurricane Fabian 2021-12-05 Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C. 2021-12-06 Hurricane Erika (1997) 2021-12-06 Hurricane Isabel 2021-12-06 Hurricane Kenna 2021-12-06 Typhoon Pongsona 2021-12-07 Hubble Space Telescope 2022-01-08 Dürer's Rhinoceros 2022-02-04 Io (moon) 2022-02-13 Solar eclipse 2022-04-30 Manchester 2022-05-12 Transformers (film) 2022-06-05 Slate industry in Wales 2022-07-05 Working [3] Schizophrenia 2022-08-18 Amanita muscaria 2022-08-26 Battle of Corydon 2022-10-10 White Deer Hole Creek 2022-10-22 Work ongoing December 2022 Mayan languages 2022-11-19 Sentence spacing 2022-11-19 Indigenous people of the Everglades region 2022-11-21 First-move advantage in chess 2022-11-21 Restoration of the Everglades 2022-11-22 King Arthur 2022-11-22 Stephen Crane 2022-11-22 Mark Kerry 2022-12-01 California Gold Rush 2022-12-02 Harry McNish Noticed 2022-12-03 History of Lithuania (1219–1295) 2022-12-03 Władysław II Jagiełło 2022-12-03 David I of Scotland 2022-12-03 Coeliac disease 2022-12-03 Metabolism 2022-12-03 Palace of Queluz 2022-12-04 Northern bald ibis 2022-12-09 Hippocampus 2022-12-09 Cane toad 2022-12-09 Sun 2022-12-09 Boeing 777 2022-12-09 Second Crusade 2022-12-09 Delichon 2022-12-10 Rock martin 2022-12-10 Lion 2022-12-10 Victoria Cross for New Zealand 2023-01-01 Work ongoing January 2023 Bengali language movement 2023-01-15 Pre-dreadnought battleship 2023-01-21 USS New Jersey (BB-62) 2023-01-23 West Wycombe Park 2023-01-25 Holkham Hall 2023-01-25 Redshift 2023-01-26 Angkor Wat 2023-01-28 Jack Sheppard 2023-02-02 Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia 2023-02-12 Guy Fawkes Night 2023-02-14 Marcus Trescothick 2023-02-22 Moe Berg 2023-03-10 Falaise Pocket 2023-03-29 James Nesbitt 2023-03-29 The Slave Community 2023-04-14 Johnstown Inclined Plane 2023-04-23 Dengue fever 2023-04-30 Wood Badge 2023-05-15 Shoshone National Forest 2023-05-16 Hurricane Claudette (2003) 2023-05-16 Cleveland 2023-05-16 Buildings and architecture of Bristol 2023-05-20 Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition 2023-05-24 Oregon State Capitol 2023-06-02 Surrender of Japan 2023-06-30 Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 2023-07-14 Felice Beato 2023-08-04 Augustus 2023-08-08 Caspar David Friedrich 2023-08-13 Jocelin of Glasgow 2023-11-01 Hydrogen 2023-11-01 Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark 2023-11-14 Ancient Egypt 2023-11-18 Taiwanese indigenous peoples 2023-11-27 Acetic acid 2023-12-8 1880 Republican National Convention 2023-12-18 Eric Brewer (ice hockey) 2024-01-02 White dwarf 2024-01-26 Adelaide Anne Procter 2024-01-30 Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve 2024-02-13 Profumo affair 2024-02-17 PowerBook 100 2024-02-23 Gwoyeu Romatzyh 2024-02-23 Helium 2024-03-25 Ocean sunfish 2024-03-31 Boston 2024-04-15
Find more: Unreviewed featured articles

I see you have submitted articles to Featured article review recently. Here is a template listing FAs (and dates) with talk page notifications that a Featured article review is needed. According to the FAR instructions, after waiting five to seven days to see if anyone engages to address the issues, anyone can bring an article to FAR, subject to a) no more than one nomination every two weeks; and b) no more than four nominations on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the image of the coin. Very appropriate. Do you have a page number for Crawford to complete the cite? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild Yes, I forgot to add the page. Fixed now.

Regarding the treaty, there are interesting contributions by Ziolkowski (pp. 41–45), Wardle and Konrad. Scullard also gives a good summary in the Cambridge Ancient History. What I think is important to stress is that there were two drafts. The first one by Catulus, the second by his brother Cerco. Scullard says that the first treaty was somewhat lenient (so Hamilcar would accept it rapidly and Catulus could be the one who finished the war). See also Hoyos, A Companion to the Punic Wars (p. 180). Hence the opposition of the Roman people told by Polybius. Ziolkowski says that the opposition to the first draft came from the second consul, Aulus Manlius Torquatus Atticus. It triggered the formation of a ten-man commission headed by Cerco, who imposed harsher terms, with a new clause on the mutual allies(p. 565). I think you should add two subsections (like "Catulus' draft" and "Final treaty").

There are also several discussions on the use of the auspices and the Praenestinian oracle by Cerco (see Konrad), but I'm not sure whether it should be included here.

In the sources section, you should mention Zonaras, but saying he's less reliable than Polybius (See Hoyos, A Companion to the Punic Wars, p. 182 note 5).T8612 (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Scullard is already used, and will be more, now I am getting to the "meat" of the article. I'm not sure about the auspices either; let's see how the article develops. Good reminder about Zonaras.

The coin image. I have cropped it to just the relevant face; moved it up to next to the mention of Catulus's victory; tweaked the caption; and given it a full harv citation. See what you think.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It is actually not acceptable practice to place tags on articles without articulating your specific underlying complaints or arguments about what needs to be resolved and why. Cleanup tags are meant to reflect specific issues that have been raised so that they can be fixed and the tag removed. They are not meant to be used as long-term, generalized "badges of shame" that an article has problems. I'm sure you would agree that it would be impossible to resolve any complaint or problem when it has never even been written out! These tags are not a substitute for communication, but instead an aid to communication, meaning ongoing discussions or disputes or actual attempts to improve the article. It's perhaps not a big deal with an objective issue that is easily fixed, but these tags are subjective. They literally need to be explained, otherwise they serve no purpose because there is no way to know what they're referring to or how to resolve them. This behavior is known as "tag bombing" or "drive-by tagging" and is disruptive if done intentionally. This is further discussed at WP:CLEANUPTAG, WP:RESPTAG#Tag slamming, WP:DRIVEBYTAG, WP:DETAG and WP:TAGBOMB. It also relates to the concept that communication is required, and failing to communicate or explain yourself is disruptive (just to be clear, I'm not saying that you did anything "disruptive", just discussing the concepts at hand). Not a big deal, not everyone intuitively knows this and we can't expect them to. I myself didn't know this as a newer user. Just thought I'd explain in more detail since my edit summary wasn't that informative. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Swarm: In fact First Triumvirate was edited by an user who triggered some controversy for making huge additions to articles on Ancient Roman and Greek history, but by only providing sources to ancient authors. He also made some original research, a lot of typos, and rarely wikilinked his content. There was a discussion in the Wikiproject here. I placed the same tags on the other articles he edited, see here (the worst I've seen) and here for examples. I thought the problems of these articles were quite obvious: no modern source, huge walls of text, and questionable reliability. If I had the time, I would write a more detailed criticism on their talk page, or even edit the articles myself, but there are quite a lot of them and they deal with large and important events that require researching the subject in detail... Is it really necessary to explain on the talk page why an article is too wordy when you have a subsection with no less than thirty paragraphs? I am ok with you removing some of the tags to keep only one, but I do think there must be a warning at the top, because these articles are not encyclopedic and contain a lot of mistakes. T8612 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am curios to know why Ancient sources are neglected in Wikipedia, as you stated. JuliusCaesar16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliusCaesar16 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JuliusCaesar16: Because they are not reliable sources. Ancient historians manipulated events to suit their political agenda. We need modern sources to tell what really happened. It's possible to cite them, but together with modern sources. The article you wanted to edit is also a Featured Article, for which you shouldn't make large additions without talking about them with other editors first. T8612 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T8712. Any chance that you could let me have exactly what Crawford has to say about this coin? Or you could remove the auctioneer's comments from Commons yourself and replace them with the entirety of Crawford's catalogue entry? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: As I said, I don't know Commons' policy regarding description. It's technically possible though. I've reread it and edited the caption a bit. Crawford doesn't say much, just that the elephants refers to Metellus and his victory of Panormus. T8612 (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between April and June 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thank you for you cleanup at Molossians. More of that would be welcome.--Maleschreiber (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maleschreiber: Sorry I don't have the time/energy. T8612 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand you :).--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to join WikiProject Phoenicia's Ancient Carthage task force You appear to be someone who may be interested in joining WikiProject Phoenicia's Ancient Carthage task force. Please accept this friendly invitation from a member of the project. I can't wait for us to work together! ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go!

• @Elie plus: I think it would be better to merge the WP Phoenicia with WP Classical Greece and Rome. Phoenicia is a very narrow subject for a WProject and is very close to the existing one. 18:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Drusus Claudius Nero (grandfather of Tiberius). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 11#Drusus Claudius Nero (grandfather of Tiberius) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ★Trekker (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree with your change of name of Lucius Licinius Murena. Broughton (p. 580) only says he must've been praetor by 88 or 87 BC – far from giving an exact date. Brennan also simply says praetor by 87 BC. Cambridge Ancient History labels him on the index as "propraetor", and "propraetor in Asia" was already undoubtedly correct. If you insist on a date it should be "propraetor 83 BC", since that's the only certain year for him. Avis11 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Avis11: You can add circa, eg. (praetor c.88 BC). Brennan says "The date of Murena’s actual magistracy must be 88 or 87." Broughton says he was Propraetor in 84 though, however it seems he was praetor in 88 or 87 and remained propraetor for a long time until 81. So I'm fine either way: (propraetor 84 BC), (praetor c.88 BC), or (propraetor 80s BC), or even (triumphator 81 BC). The date of the triumph is the only one that is secure and that doesn't span over several years, so perhaps it's the best solution. T8612 (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite a fan of using circa in article titles. The Cambridge Ancient History seems fine with labeling him propraetor 84, notwithstanding the date range. Broughton says 83 BC was certain and 84 BC likely (whence I actually preferred 'propraetor 83 BC'), based on the fact that Murena certainly held the office in 83 but had already received an unspecified but probably identical appointment the previous year. I am also okay with 'triumphator 81 BC', so I'm probably using that as a compromise, if you agree as well. Thank you for your time. Avis11 (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Avis11: Let's go with Lucius Licinius Murena (triumphator 81 BC). T8612 (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, unrelated: could you also give an input in this Talk:Publius Sulpicius Rufus discussion? Avis11 (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit saying that it was not just a population transfer but i had already kept the information which states there was a genocide. I just added population exchange because it was also another major factor. --Visnelma (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T8612, Borsoka has asked that I give a little more detail on the Romans' reasons for going to war. Now there is a challenge for summary style. Once done I am sure that you will be along with what I have missed or mis-emphasised and a helpful source or two. So I thought that I might save time by asking who you think gives the best summary of this - not necessarily the most comprehensive - and what you think the top two or three "must include" reasons are. Entirely optional of course, but it would be helpful and probably save work in the long run. Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: ok, give me a word limit. T8612 (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ideally, I wouldn't like to add more than 500 characters, tops. But there is, obviously, some flex in that. If you can point me in what you consider the right direction I can probably trim things without losing too much meaning, so don't over-worry about length. Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 09:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I would say something like this, to be inserted after the paragraph "Carthage had paid off its indemnity...": "Modern scholars have long debated the real motivations for the war, as the reason given by ancient authors is improbable: Carthage on its small territory was hardly a threat for Rome. Some alternative explanations have therefore been suggested, such as Rome wanted to get rid of an economic competitor, or that she wanted to prevent Numidia from conquering Carthage and forming a large empire in Africa, or also that it was a pre-emptive strike to avoid fighting on several fronts (as wars were also looming in Spain and Greece), etc. However, none of these theories has reached a consensus, and the question remains open." 622 characters.

Among the sources, I would definitely cite this article by Ursula Vogel-Weidemann, and Harris in the CAH 8, pp. 142-157. Le Bohec also discusses the problems pp. 431-5. There is a huge literature on the subject, eg. most of the books dealing with Roman imperialism. T8612 (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. That also makes me feel better about not being able to make sense of the ancient sources and not being able to work out what the modern consensus was. Once I started writing the topic ran away with itself, but I think that I have ended up with a reasonable summary, sensibly cited. I would be grateful if you could run your eye over it. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. I have just finished doing some work on this for Borsoka and Harrias, which will hopefully satisfy their concerns. I was wondering how much more there was to come from you, as I am hoping to get this wrapped up, one way or another, before too long. Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll check. T8612 (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612, thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anything left? Or are we at make your mind up time? Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, and very many thanks for all of the work, effort and support you have put in to, hopefully, get this article up to scratch. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this sitting in the draft space. What's the story? I don't see anything about it that should keep it from being moved out & used in articles. -- llywrch (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: Well it's a template I made for the Scipiones, but I'm not sure it's relevant or useful. T8612 (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I think it might be useful; no harm to be bold, move it out of Draft space, & add it to articles. If you have any doubts, you can always mention ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. -- llywrch (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, T8612. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Template:Cornelii Scipiones".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aulus Postumius.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dishekel hispano-cartaginés-2.jpg Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gaius Porcius Cato (consul 114 BC) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gaius Porcius Cato (consul 114 BC) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gaius Porcius Cato (consul 114 BC) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gaius Porcius Cato (consul 114 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gaius Porcius Cato (consul 114 BC) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with using some primary sources in quotes or doing something like Rosalia (festival), where the secondary sources are obviously the sources being used, but the primary sources that the secondary sources are based on are also quoted. I myself don't do that in my articles, but it's a valid choice. (Main reason I don't do it for anything medieval is that unlike ancient sources, many many medieval sources are not available in cheap Penguin editions so it's not that helpful for the reader to give the primary sources since tracking them down is not likely to happen). But then you have Didius Julianus, where large sections are sourced ONLY to primary sources. This is an open invitation to make conclusions from the sources - and we're not historians when we are writing articles on Wikipedia. Another reason I don't use primary sources in my medieval articles is that, because I DO have training as a medievalist, it would be entirely too easy for me to slip into "historian" mode and not "wikiepedia encyclopedia editor" if I consult the primary sources. I do think it happens a bit too much in the Greco-Roman area and I like to praise those editors who don't use primary sources extensively. And you'll note, I don't go around pulling out primary sources from the Greek/Roman articles - I just don't review those article at GA that rely on primary sources, nor do I do nearly as much with the subject area as I could (I am not trained as a classicist, but due to my religious beliefs, I do have a decent grasp of the history and time period, and have a lot of the secondary sources ... it just isn't an area on wikipedia where my editing habits fit in well...).Ealdgyth (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree that there is often a problem with primary sources used as reliable sources, but they are perfectly fine if used correctly (eg. to show how modern scholars have interpreted them). In the beginning of my Wikipedia editing, I mentioned all the possible references in ancient sources, as a modern scholar would do, but now I'm limiting myself to only those that are especially important (for example, in the article on Cato, I've only cited Cicero). It's a shame not to use them when they are available on Wikisource. T8612 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between October and December 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, T8612. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Syracuse (polis), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is "Spread on Christianity" off-topic on Alexander? I'd really like to know. Thanks in advance. (Also the images that you removed) Holloman123 (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Holloman123: Alexander lived 350 years before Christianity, he could not have helped spreading it. You can add the pictures if you want. T8612 (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah true, it needs to be rephrased, could you please revert it back and make some grammar updates/changes? Because the concept is correct. Thank you sir. Holloman123 (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, the concept is not correct. Mentioning Christianity in Alexander the Great is only relevant here if Christians made references to him. This is why the Quran is mentioned on this page. None of what you wrote shows that. It would better be placed in articles like Spread of Christianity. T8612 (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How mentioning that the New Testament was written in the Alexandrian dialect is not relevant? Also about Antioch, which is considered as The Cradle of christianity and was created by one of Alexander's generals? Holloman123 (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems very marginal, far fetched and WP:FRINGE based on very dubious links. If there's anything to it please find proper sources (which likely say something far less noteworthy) such as academic publications or serious history books. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't understand how this addition is marginal and far fetched, but alright. If I add around 10-15 sources/references will it be okay, lol? Holloman123 (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be ok unless you can find credible sources (see WP:RS); and unless you can demonstrate this is really significant and not you making WP:SYNTH links. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that I can't figure out where I made WP:SYNTH links, could you please elaborate? My addition was based on other wikipedia articles and references. I really can't understand this reversion. If needed, I can add more references. Holloman123 (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the statements "Antioch was founded by Alexander" and "Antioch was the cradle of Christianity" to reach a new conclusion not stated in the source (WP:SYNTH), which is blatantly incorrect, that "Alexander helped establish Christianity". That would be the same thing as saying "Rome was founded by Romulus" and "Rome was/is the seat of the Pope"; therefore "Romulus helped establish Christianity"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, I think you didn't even read my edit properly. The edit was: One of Alexander's generals, Seleucus I Nicator who controlled most of Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and the Iranian Plateau after Alexander's death, founded Antioch, which is known as the cradle of Christianity, since the name "Christian" for Jesus' followers first emerged there. I never said that Alexander was the one that founded Antioch, but one of his generals, and I copied the text from the official Antioch article which talks about being the cradle of Christianity, and that the first followers were called like that there. (This is also on Christianity). If you also find the references not reliable enough (which are 100%), I can add more, but I still can't understand how people are paraphrasing the edit. Holloman123 (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is this on Alexander's page if he didn't even found the goddamn city? And that doesn't solve the issue that it is synthesis, because the actions of the "founder" probably don't have much influence on events that happened in or near (or as a result of the existence of) the city centuries later. Again, your argument can be decomposed into three parts. First, you have two premises:

A) "Antioch was founded by one of Alexander's generals"

B) "Antioch was a cradle of Christianity"

From which you appear then to come to a conclusion:

C) "Therefore, Alexander's actions were important in the development of Christianity"

Both of the premises appear in sources, but the conclusion is, if I may say so, clearly a figment of your imagination. To quote WP:SYNTH: "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." This seems pretty much a textbook example of it. Hopefully you understand now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this comes partially from our discussion in Talk:Populares but, as it isn't directly topical, what are your thoughts on old sources à la the 1867 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography...? Or sources like Abbott's 1901 A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions? It seems to me that a lot of articles are heavily dependent on century-plus old sources; a lot of them don't reflect modern scholarship or discoveries. I guess it's similar to history sources writ large (eg people citing the British WW1 Official History even though there are demonstrable inaccuracies and omissions), but would like to hear your thoughts on the matter generally. Ifly6 (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6: Abbott is not a reliable source and I remove it whenever I can. Regarding the DGBRM, it's practical (more than the RE) to get ancient sources, but can be removed for more recent ones when available, as it's mostly a paraphrase of ancient sources. The reason editors have used them is because they are easily accessible. T8612 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on transcribing Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. In the article for Sulla, there are several images of coins minted by the dictator or of the dictator appearing on p. 943. I have been able to find images in Wikimedia Commons for three of the four coins, but for the remaining coin I am only able to find a single side. This is from the second of the four coins on the page. Based on the image of the page, the coin in questions has a curule chair on both sides, one labeled Q. Pompei Rufus Cos. and the other labeled Sulla Cos. Could you please help me find the missing sides of this coin? Or an image with both sides of the coin? Amphipolis (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amphipolis: T8612 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Amphipolis (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to whom I should send this question, so here I go. I wrote an entirely new version of a page for Constitutional reforms of Sulla (currently at User:Ifly6/Constitutional reforms of Sulla). Is there a process for entirely replacing the content of a page which can merge some of the edit history? Of course, I also would be happy to hear feedback on the proposed replacement as well. Ifly6 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just copy and paste the new text over the old one. You don't need to keep edit history in this case since you've been the only editor. T8612 (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm working on the fourth Macedonian war and related articles at the moment. Apparently, quite a few coins of the pretender Andriscus still survive, but only one [4] is available on commons. Would it be possible for you to upload images of a few more? I'd be much obliged; it would be very useful for both the Fourth Macedonian War and Andriscus articles. Regards, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HalfdanRagnarsson: Andriscus only minted one type of coin (the one on Commons), of which only three specimens are known... So I can't really do more. T8612 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)•[reply]

Oh, that's all right then. Also, is it possible to get a few images of coins of Metellus Macedonicus? I plan to work on that article later, but the only image on commons that relates directly to him is a neoclassical painting of one of his acts in Iberia, besides the coins of other Caecilii Metelli. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HalfdanRagnarsson: I've added pictures and some precisions. You should format the new refs. T8612 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - will do so! These coins you've added will be a great help to those image-starved pages. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cleomenes II you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cleomenes II you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cleomenes II for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, T8612. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Template:Cornelii Scipiones".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cleomenes II you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cleomenes II for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think the articles Sulla's civil war, Sulla's first civil war, and Sulla's second civil war should be reorganized somehow, and, since this is in your area of interest, your opinion would be appreciated. By my reckoning, there should only be one "Sulla's civil war" article, the one about the war of 83–82 BC, which is currently labeled as the "second civil war", and I think at least one of the other two articles should not exist for that reason. I might be wrong, hence why I'm here. The issue is being discussed here, but I'd like to hear your professional opinion on this since I don't think any of the comments til now offer sound reasoning.

Before someone thinks to use this post as evidence of canvassing, read wp:canvassing#Inappropriate notification. Avilich (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send me a test email through Wikipedia? So I can send you Drummond's article which you asked. Avilich (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sent Avilich (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. T8612 (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, T8612. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Scipio Aemilianus, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pdf (Kagan). A great addition to my library. It will improve my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciusHistoricus (talk • contribs) 11:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you perchance get your hands on a picture of the coin number 288 ('Cetegus') found in Crawford RRC p. 302? For this article. I know the coin probably wasn't issued by him but the page could do with a picture. Avilich (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich Done. T8612 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, many thanks Avilich (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the reliance on Polybius and Livy is too heavy for a FA, but I'm not familiar enough with ancient Sparta to be able to really judge the other sources or tell if something major is missing. Would you be able to take a look at this (I also recently gave Demosthenes a pre-FAR notice). Hog Farm _Talk 20:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. Demosthenes should also go to FAR. T8612 (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked for the source too, I created the article here Elean War, if you're interested. Avilich (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich thanks a lot! T8612 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Archidamus I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archidamus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your changes and improvements to the Anaxandridas II article. I am curious as to why you changed the date that he ceased to be king to 524 BC in the lead paragraph of the article but you did not make any changes to the equivalent dates elsewhere in the article. Do you have information to suggest that he died before around 520 BC? I don't have access to the books that you used for your updates so I would appreciate your clarification regarding his date of death/cessation of reign. Thanks Chewings72 (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chewings72: Yes, we know that his son Cleomenes II became king in 524. I will update later. T8612 (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thanks. Chewings72 (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading somewhere that "Areos" simply means "of Areus" (genitive case), and not an alternative spelling. Avilich (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: Original spelling in Greek is Areos, which was Latinised into Areus (like Agesilaos/Agesilaus, Archidamos/Archidamus, etc.), but some scholars retained the Greek spelling, albeit often inconsistently. I think the genitive form of his name you mention may have been related to the legend of Areus' coins. T8612 (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that, unlike all those other examples, "Areus" is not a Latinization, but that his actual Greek name was APEYC. Just like basileos means "of basileus", Areos would then mean "of Areus". The coin legend basileos Areos presumably means "of King Areus" (as said by this source). Avilich (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. It seems the spelling Areos is mostly confined to Italian, Spanish and some German literature. I'll change. T8612 (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I wanted to query about what processes are relevant for recommending deletion of this page: Land reform in the Roman republic. I think it's of very low quality, especially when the actualities of land reform have been reevaluated on archaeological evidence more broadly. But I'm not sure whether to pursue deletion or other means to deal with it. Ifly6 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: Can you help deleting this terrible article? T8612 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6: Right off the bat I'll just recommend that any of you two place a WP:PROD (citing noncompliance with WP:V and WP:NOR as the rationale) and pray that nobody removes it for 7 days, in which case it will be deleted. If someone perchance does so, then just redirect it to some random obscure article, which will hide it from public view (or just redirect straight away without PRODding). I do not recommend going through the regular WP:AfD, as it's too much of a bother, though I'll support whatever you two decide to do, since I agree that this article needs to go. Avilich (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did the substitution thing citing those two elements. Ifly6 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]