User talk:Llywrch/Archive15

Hi Llywrch! I see you recently reviewed Daedalion for WikiProject Mythology. I haven't looked at Daedalion in a while but once upon a time I did a bit of work on it. Having just reviewed the page I wondered if you had any suggestions on how to bump up its rating a bit to maybe a C or B class article? All the best, Nyctimene (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Academy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of WikiProject Greece
		Once again, for your dedicated, tireless work on the Empire of Trebizond, for single-handedly immeasurably improving coverage in both quantity and quality and countering systemic bias, I am happy to award you with this small token of appreciation. On behalf of WikiProject Greece, thanks! Constantine ✍ 22:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing to take on the review of Cadbury Camp a few days ago. I feel I should let you know I will be away and have no internet access from the 22 to 29 June (at Glastonbury Festival) so will not be able to respond in a timely manner to any comments you may make during that time.— Rod ^talk 18:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your extensive comments. I have attempted to address some of the issues identified and responded on the review page.— Rod ^talk 07:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just got back from Glastonbury Festival and wanted to thank you for taking on the GA review of River Avon (Bristol), but I wondered if you had yet decided whether my responses on Talk:Cadbury Camp/GA1 met your concerns or are there issues still outstanding?— Rod ^talk 19:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your comments at Talk:River Avon (Bristol)/GA1. I was wondering whether you had any time to look at my responses to your comments - particularly the additions re flooding etc which you suggested?— Rod ^talk 07:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you did not follow the instructions for placing Senatus consultum ultimum on hold and got reverted by the bot. Thus none of the proper notifications got sent out. Please review the instructions at WP:GAN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, I wasn't sure whether you'd seen Zwerg Nase's comment on the review, saying you should feel free to fail it now, since the nominator has no time to make further adjustments to the article at present.

At over two and a half months, this is currently the second oldest GA review, and it should probably be closed now. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexios IV of Trebizond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kastania. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you had added useful information on Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi page couple years ago which kept being deleted by a troublesome editor who is now banned. Zekenyan (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of people who disappeared mysteriously may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 18800-the-disappearance-of-david-durham "The disappearance of David Durham"], ''Portland Tribune''], originally published 23 January 2012</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Durham (fugitive) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Durham (fugitive) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked email lately? Do I still have the right address? Hoping to see you tomorrow night -- and especially hoping I might be able to introduce you to Cclowe and Ijon, you have strongly overlapping interests in Africa. Possible you already know each other, but I think an in-person chat would be especially fun. -Pete (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in Oregon's upcoming Art+Feminism events, which will be held in Portland and Eugene on Saturday, March 5, 2016. Please see the following links for additional information, or to sign up:

---

• Portland: Yale Union (800 SE 10th Avenue), 12:00–5:00pm
• Eugene: Architecture and Allied Arts (A&AA) Library (200 Lawrence Hall, University of Oregon), 12:00–5:00pm

---

About Art+Feminism: Art+Feminism is pleased to announce its third annual Wikipedia edit-a-thon, an all-day event designed to generate coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia and encourage female editorship. Last year, over 1,500 participants at more than 75 events around the world participated in the second annual campaign, resulting in the creation of nearly 400 new pages and significant improvements to 500 articles on Wikipedia. For more information, see Art+Feminism.

You received this message because you have attended a Wikipedia meetup in Oregon or contributed to WikiProject Oregon. To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Roman consuls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cossus Cornelius Lentulus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Roman consuls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quintus Fabius Ambustus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

640 BC

added a link pointing to Theagenes

654 BC

added a link pointing to Acanthus

700s BC (decade)

added a link pointing to Croton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Llywrch, some times ago I noticed that you removed several genealogic claims by Christian Settipani and his Nos ancêtres de l'Antiquité. I'm not opposing that at all, since I believe his claims are very speculative, but in many biographical articles regarding ancient Egypt (my field of interest on Wikipedia) Settipani's book is used as a source - often the only one - for family relationships. So I'm looking for a somewhat definitive answer about its effective reliability for such cases or not. Khruner (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I got it. I was prone to remove any relationships confirmed only by S. (even if provided with page numbers) but now I agree that the best way is probably to left such claims in their place, while specifying that these are S.' opinions. Khruner (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Llywrch, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Smallbones article quality by category report. As you may be able to tell, I'm new to Wikipedia and hearing from more experienced editors is really helpful for my research. I'm interested in how articles change in quality over time, and my working hypothesis is that biological evolution may provide a useful model for understanding gradual and incremental improvements in article quality.

One of the advantages to this approach is that it would allow for assessing article quality across categories of articles, that is, it wouldn't be affected by differences between GEO articles and any other category because quality is assessed relative to a particular article's revision history. By this measure, that an article is consistently improving is the most important measure of success. The goal of the project is to identify the editing strategies of highly effective editors and teams, in particular the correct application of the BRDC, through visualizing an article's revision history as a tree of edits.

If you are at all interested in reading more about the project and giving me your thoughts on whether it would be useful to you as an editor, the project is up as a grant application for the IEG program, titled Learning from article revision histories.

Evoapps (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lucius Iunius Pullus (consul 249 BC), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eutropius. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for improving articles on various Roman gentes and related articles, I would like to ask you to observe certain policies when editing them, since going back and correcting these edits can be very time-consuming. First, please do not change citation format from one style to another. I have no objection to changing "Livius" to "Livy" or using ref name tags to avoid unnecessary duplication. However, if a specific piece of information is cited to "Livy v. 1–3", please do not change it to "Livy 5.1–3." I understand that you might prefer one style to the other, but there is no inherent superiority to one citation method, and in fact converting book numbers to Arabic numerals makes it more likely for typographical errors to creep in; and this is aside from the fact that doing it only in the citations you edit for other reasons means that the same source may be cited by different methods in a single article, creating additional confusion.

Also, please do not delete entries for individuals known only from inscriptions or inferred from filiations. Notability is the criterion for including articles about individuals, not for mentioning individuals in articles possessing independent notability, as is the case with Roman gentes. These articles are intended to be fully-inclusive, at least insofar as it is possible to do so based on nomenclature (with perhaps a few exceptions from late Imperial times, when it becomes difficult to distinguish gentiles on the basis of their names, particularly anyone named "Flavius"). Even if all that is known of Lucius Stultius is that he was the grandfather of Marcus Stultius Perditissimus, he should still appear in the list. This is particularly important with smaller gentes, as it demonstrates continuity, extent, and time span, as well as the use of names by families and branches of families over time.

The general rule for citation in these articles is that individuals who possess their own articles are linked thereto, where sources can be given for the various details of their lives; so these are not usually cited in the gens articles, although in some cases citations may be given anyway. Citations are generally provided for any individual not possessing a separate article, together with a brief summary of the person's significance, insofar as that can be condensed into one or two lines, generally focused on offices held or significant events, if any. No citation is given for individuals known only from the filiations of other persons listed. Relationships to others are usually mentioned only when they are the most important things known about the person; this is to keep entries from becoming genealogical rather than biographical. Additional details would go in separate articles about each person, if warranted.

I hope these guidelines won't dampen your interest in the topic; I simply want to explain some of the policies in question in order to avoid conflicts with these articles. P Aculeius (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aulus Plautius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lucius Nonius Asprenas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Publius Vinicius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Legate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gaius Fonteius Capito

added a link pointing to Cossus Cornelius Lentulus

Lucius Ragonius Venustus

added a link pointing to Venetia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lucius Aurelius Commodus Pompeianus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geta. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Numerius Fabius Ambustus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quintus Fabius Ambustus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

look here. Seneca was 55 consul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikythos (talk • contribs) 06:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't read Italian. Care to summarize? -- llywrch (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Consul list can be read even without knowledge of Italian. :) --Μίκυθος (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big problem with working from a list in a language you don't know, & favoring it because it is the latest work: you are working entirely on trust. You are trusting that this professor is making a reasoned argument without knowing what the argument is. And I wish I could trust his reasons for his revised list, because his paper looks very useful. But I'm not comfortable with choosing sources to compile this list simply based on the criterion that it is the latest published work. But thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- llywrch (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gallia Narbonensis

added a link pointing to Geta

Lucius Siccius Dentatus

added a link pointing to As

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits to the list of Roman consuls: partly linking various articles on the Julii, a bit of trimming on the praenomina section, but also standardizing the orthography; i.e. Iulius – Julius, Iunius – Junius, Iuventius – Juventius. I was nearly done when I realized how much work you'd already put into the article, and how you might react if you didn't like the changes. I realize that the article was like that long before you started revising it, but all the same you didn't change it, so maybe you liked it that way.

If you agree with my changes, fine; I doubt anybody else will complain. But if you would rather go back to the former orthography, please don't simply revert all of the changes (sorry about doing them all in one edit; I tend to be a "kitchen sink" editor; if I see something I can take care of in passing, I try to do it immediately so that I don't forget to do it later). I'm perfectly happy to discuss reverting to the original orthography, but would rather not lose the other edits. I think that there are several good reasons for using standard English orthography, but I'm not inflexible and I'm willing to be convinced.

Otherwise, I'm glad to see such a dedicated editor working hard on project pages. Good work! P Aculeius (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marcus Geganius Macerinus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ardea. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Marcus Minucius Rufus

added a link pointing to Quintus Mucius Scaevola

Publius Cornelius Scipio Asina

added a link pointing to Quintus Mucius Scaevola

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marcus Munatius Sulla Urbanus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CIL. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I currently have a project known as the Roman and Byzantine military history page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Roman and Byzantine Military History, I was wondering if you would like to join, as you have shown interest in ancient history. Iazyges (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gnaeus Papirius Aelianus

added a link pointing to Sarmizegetusa

Servius Sulpicius Praetextatus

added a link pointing to Marcus Fabius Ambustus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gaius Aquillius Tuscus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Etruscan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is being sent to you because you are listed as an emeritus member of MedCom and an examination of your contribution page suggests that you are still active at en-Wikipedia. MedCom is currently down to three or four active members (there are more than that on the active member list, but some of them have not edited Wikipedia in quite awhile). We have a current case awaiting a mediator which is receiving no response from the request for a mediator sent on the MedCom mailing list a couple of days ago, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Would you please consider reactivating your membership, taking that case, or both? If you're interested in doing so and are not still on the MedCom mailing list, please just let me know and I'll reactivate you and add you to the list. Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) 19:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC) (current MedCom chairperson)[reply]

Hi you up for this? Ethiopia needs you ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, well if you could do one or two quick Ethiopia stubs when the kids have gone to bed on the weekend or something sometime every little counts haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LLywrch, since you were pinged from the individual reassessment page, I wanted to let you know that your original post and the reply to it today (which had the ping) have been copied to the community reassessment page, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pontius Pilate's wife/1‎.

The individual reassessment was actually closed in late July, over a month before your September post there, with a community reassessment opened that same day. Since there is an active community reassessment ongoing, I duplicated your comment there (along with the reply). This way, your very germane comments become a part of the community reassessment process.

Since this is a community reassessment, you can also record your !vote in the usual manner if you wish. Thanks, and sorry for any confusion. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep the old stuff. You're so stupid --Μίκυθος (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you simply add the references to the article as I suggested? You obviously know the material. And I would sincerely appreciate the help. -- llywrch (talk)

You cannot add a footnote because of every fart. I will retreat. I'll be amused about the changes. Sorry, my English is not so good. --Μίκυθος (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of undated Roman consuls page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a series of discussions going on concerning the issue of how to apply the terminology of "Garage punk". In addition to the GA discussion at the Acid rock artcle, there are discussions on the talk page of the Garage punk article and at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

As per the discussion at the above linked to page, I was wondering whether you might have any idea how "Nda Mariam," the name of the Coptic Cathedral in Asmara, translates into English. John Carter (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ban of User:Til Eulenspiegel, who I think was among those you were discussing in terms of knowledge about Ethiopia. I wouldn't mind seeing him unbanned myself, although obviously the socking issue might be problematic there. Also, if it is of any use, over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy/Prospectus#Paulos Milkas Dictionary of Ethiopian Christianity I have put together a list of the various articles of any real length in that work, although I acknowledge that there do exist some problems in at least some cases with the clarity of the language used in that work. The author apparently knows Ge'ez, Amharic, and French well, but English not so well. The Coptic Encyclopedia, which I haven't checked for inclusion in the prospectus yet, might be useful for some issues regarding the historical forms of Ethiopian Christianity as well. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Llywrch! I've been doing a bit of maintenance on Roman gentes, and ran across an important member of the rather unimportant gens Appia: Lucius Appius Maximus Norbanus, a general under Domitian and Trajan. His entry in DGRBM says that he was consul in AD 103, attributing the date to the Fasti, but then citing to Dionysius. His entry in PIR suggests that he was consul twice in uncertain years. I was on the verge of trying to add him under 103 myself, but couldn't figure out how to do it without messing up your system, and I didn't want to risk it if it were possible you already knew about him, and left him out deliberately for some reason (such as the uncertainty in PIR). So I thought I'd let you know, so you could decide what to do with him! P Aculeius (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, I wasn't sure whether you'd seen that you'd had a response to your review, wondering whether the subsequent changes had addressed the issues you raised. I hope you'll be able to stop by soon. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your note about the abovementioned consul, the entry is so given in PIR, but looking closely at the entry here I suspect it may be indicating some uncertainty as to the authenticity of Nonius (although there's no indication that it should be Pompeius, and it's hard to imagine how one could be turned into the other). My Latin is not good enough to interpret many of the notes in PIR; if I can't figure out what it says, and Google Translate doesn't help (it works more like a dictionary with Latin), I just have to ignore it and hope someone else can correct the mistake later. I wish I were better at interpreting PIR entries. But at least I can understand some of the Latin, which is more than I would if they were written in German, Italian, or Finnish. Anyway, as far as I can make out, the nomen may always have been suspect. But it could still have been part of the consul's name, even if Pompeius was also part of it. Not sure this is very helpful, but that's all I can glean from it! P Aculeius (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Llywrch. Was working on the Ostorii today and found some discrepancies with the list of Roman consuls. The DGRBM says that the year of Scapula's consulship is not certain, but that some Fasti assign it to AD 46. It also says that he became governor of Britain in 50, which is contradicted by his article and PIR, which say 47. However, PIR also suggests that he was consul shortly before taking up the government of Britain, which would make sense if he had been consul in 46. The List of Roman consuls dates him to 41, based on Gallivan's reconstruction of the Fasti during the reign of Claudius.

But I just found an inscription, AE 1980 907, which gives the date by the consulship of Gaius Selius Rufus and Quintus Ostorius Scapula. This seems to correspond with the Publius Suillius Rufus I assume Gallivan lists in 41, which if correct does give us the date. But there was a Quintus Ostorius Scapula, who was one of the first praetorian prefects, and likely Publius' father. He might have been the consul of 41, or perhaps the consul was an older brother of Publius (typically the eldest son would be named after his father), in which case Publius is probably one of the suffecti for 46, as the other sources seem to indicate. I may know more once I've gone through the rest of the inscriptions, but right now I'm thinking that the consul of 41 might not have been Publius. P Aculeius (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Titus Prifernius Geminus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ostia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (415 Southwest 10th Avenue #300, Portland 97205) on Saturday, March 18, 2017 from 10:00am – 5:00pm. For more information, visit Eventbrite.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hispania Baetica

added a link pointing to Arrianus

Lucius Volusius Saturninus (suffect consul 3)

added a link pointing to Lucius Aelius Lamia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch. Thanks for your contributions to Germania Superior, especially for your work in adding references here and here documenting the list of Governors. When using the same source repeatedly in a list like that, a good way to do that is through the use of named refs.

The problem with a formulation like, Governor Magnificus Vir, 56-59 A.D.<ref>"Unless otherwise noted, governors from 56-125 are taken from (Complete Source Info Here)"</ref> followed by a list of several other governors in that time span that all rely on the same source but that have no citations, is that as soon as you've moved on to other things and a few other editors have jumped in, no one really knows anymore which ones are covered by that source and which ones aren't, as the information may have been changed. To maintain verifiability, I made a change to the section you edited to use named refs instead, for all the items that I think you meant to cover. So now, it looks like this, but if you could please check it out to make sure this change accurately reflects what you meant, I'd appreciate it. [Please reply here, if you choose to reply.] Mathglot (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I'm sorry, but I don't see how your style is better. What I see here is simply a difference in tastes. The point is that if someone makes an edit or correction but fails to provide a source, by policy it's already liable to reversion. And despite your use of named sources, someone can still move things around, or change names, etc., & still make a hash of the list or article. No matter what one does, it is almost impossible to prevent bad edits, whether made in good faith or out of malice.

However, my style is simple. I find having identical footnotes to a long series of entries annoying. By explaining the range of entries that are based on a source in the footnotes, it future-proofs the by allowing another editor to add a name or change a name within that range while requiring a reference for only one entry. I feel the point of the sourcing obvious. Lastly, if too many edits result in more exceptions than cases for the range of entries to which the footnote apply, another editor should adjust the edit accordingly.

As a result, I'd greatly appreciate it if you didn't change the way I source these lists. -- llywrch (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's a difference in taste, but a difference in verifiability as I tried to explain, perhaps not very well. As to "another editor should adjust the edit accordingly" I simply don't believe that will happen. Already quite soon after your edit, I already wasn't 100% certain I was interpreting your sourcing correctly, which is why I came here to inquire about it to make sure the named refs I introduced were not incorrectly placed, per your intentions. If one waits a few weeks or months or years, it will simply be less and less certain which entries were meant, "way back when". Everything is available in the History, of course, but what future editor will wish to go on a research expedition just to try to to sort all that out? I just don't think it will happen. That's why I wanted to nip it in the bud, so to speak, while we were still close in time to the event. Hope that explains better what I was trying to do. However, I understand your PoV and I will respect your wishes and not change the way you source these lists in the future. Happy editing. Mathglot (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aulus Bucius Lappius Maximus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Legate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mifter (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gaius Vipstanus Messalla Gallus

added a link pointing to Teanum

Marcus Vettulenus Civica Barbarus

added a link pointing to Faustina

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sextus Papinius Allenius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equestrian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gaius Catellius Celer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nomen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Llywrch! Ran across two undated consuls while working on revisions to gens Arruntia, and found a source that provided an approximate date, but I wasn't sure how you'd approach adding them to the table, so I thought I'd post here. Also, while I was looking for where to add them, I ran across an entry that may need to be moved, but then again it could just be a typo, and since I don't have the original source to refer to, I thought it best to mention it to you.

The mistake is listed around AD 150, where you have a consul Quintus Antonius Cassius Cassianus listed as "mid-1st century". Was just about to move him there, when I noticed the source citation seems very close to the following entries, which are mid-2nd century, so I concluded it was more likely to be a typo.

The new pair of consuls are Lucius Arruntius and Titus Flavius Bassus, from CIL X, 6785, where they are suffecti x. kal. Dec., i.e. November 22. Henri Schuermans, at page 86, citing Emil Hübner with relation to the shapes of the letters in the inscription, places them at the end of the second century. I wasn't sure how you would want to cite this, or whether you'd cite it at all. P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Henri Schuermans, "Age de la Colonne Itinéraire de Tongres", in Bulletin de la Société Scientifique et Littéraire du Limbourg, vol. XIX, pp. 65–94 (1901).

@P Aculeius:, About Q. Antoninus Cassius Cassianus, I think you're right. But I'd like to doublecheck Alföldy first before making the change; I may have put him in the wrong century. As for L. Arruntius & T. Flavius Bassus... you have handed me quite the puzzle.

What I hope will become the general rule once I've finished at least the first pass through this list is that if someone wants to make a change & has a reliable source published more recently, they can revise the entry with no hesitation. But what you've handed me is an older reliable source. I'm reluctant to add them as "second half of 2nd century". First, neither Arruntius or Flavius are eponymous consuls, thus they are suffects. Then there's the issue that outside of Italy proper no inscription has been found with a date after AD 153 that references suffect consuls, & none in Italy outside of Rome after 175. (The chancery is known to have dated military diplomas in reference to suffect consuls until 206.) Finally, the letter-forms in this inscription seem unusual for the period -- especially the "M"s & "A"s, although this might just be an idiosyncrasy of the engraver or the person who wrote the inscription. Therefore, while it's likely they are a 2nd-century pair, I'd say from the first half of the century. It also doesn't help that when I looked up CIL X, 6785 in the Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss / Slaby EDCS website, there is no evidence anyone has studied this inscription; none of its links offer a date for the inscription -- which one or more often do. Schuermans appears to have been the last person to offer a comment on this inscription! I'll need to research this pair further. -- llywrch (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marcus Arruntius Aquila (consul 66), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Procurator. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) Library at 511 NW Broadway on Saturday, April 29, 2017, from 11am to 4pm. For more information, visit the Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quintus Publilius Philo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palaeopolis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the upcoming Asian Pacific American Heritage month edit-athon.

This will be held on the first floor of the Knight library at the University of Oregon.

For more information please see: Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA, a Facebook event link is also available on the Meetup page.

• Date: Friday, May 26, 2017
• Time: 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm
• Location: Edminston Classroom, Knight Library, Room 144
• Address:1501 Kincaid Street, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1299

Hope to see you there!

(This message was sent to WikiProject members via Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA/MailingList on 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC). To opt-out of future messages please remove your name from the mailing list.)

You are invited to the upcoming Wiki Loves Pride edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway) on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, from 5–8pm. For more information, visit the meetup page or Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of battle 1400 BC-600 AD. Since you had some involvement with the List of battle 1400 BC-600 AD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of battles 801-1400. Since you had some involvement with the List of battles 801-1400 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion on the article Appius Claudius Pulcher (consul suffectus) but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. ansh666 18:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am completing this process as you typed the above. And I can complete it quicker without notes like this. Thank you. -- llywrch (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make sure you were aware; people often stick the tag on and forget to finish it. Sorry about the stuff about unregistereds; I've really got to make a version of the canned template for experienced editors. ansh666 20:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No harm, now. At the time I was trying to walk thru the steps of nominating two articles at a time, & feeling frustrated. I nominate articles to AfD so seldomly each time I feel as if I'm doing it for the first time. I hope I wasn't too verbose in my explanation about why the articles should be deleted. (And I'm not the only one who can see what a swamp 2nd century Roman history is.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a horribly complicated process, unfortunately. Looks good though now! Cheers, ansh666 22:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Titus Vestricius Spurinna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Placentia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih^Talk 01:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gaius Julius Severus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Parthian War

Quintus Servilius Pudens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aemilia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Thursday, October 26, a Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color will be held from 4–8pm at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway). Learn more at Facebook. Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Llywrch, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightlymad 04:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. ALT2 proposed per your suggestion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Non-lead hooks with at least 15K and #1 for October. We are the leader for the month of October! It would have been bigger (I think) if they ran the picture, or in the lead slot. Thanks for the review. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. :-) llywrch (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, you opened this review page back on October 17, but haven't returned to do the actual review. Do you plan on doing so soon? If not, I can put it back into the pool of unreviewed nominations with no loss of seniority, but I hope you'll take this one on. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you sign your discussion closure here. It makes it easier for accountability purposes in case anyone were to have any questions. --Jayron32 15:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at WP:AN, I expected I would make some mistakes in closing. ;-) llywrch (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marcus Claudius Marcellus (consul 166 BC), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaius Marcius Figulus (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) 18:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaius Calpurnius Piso Crassus Frugi Licinianus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lucius Volusius Saturninus (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.)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Llywrch! Ran across this inscription while adding the Petellii to gens Petillia, and tried to date it: CIL VIII, 18065. If I read it correctly, it's dated to the third consulship of Marcus Aurelius, i.e. AD 161. Fronto is listed as consul designatus, but he wasn't on the list of Roman consuls, or the list of consuls designate. Checking the list of undated consuls, he's listed as circa 151. Not sure what the basis for that year is, although you might be. But if my understanding of the inscription is correct, it strongly suggests that Fronto was consul designatus—and probably consul shortly thereafter, since he's listed as an undated consul, not a designate—in 161. Does this give us a firm date? P Aculeius (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: There's a couple of issues here. One (which I found after looking over List of undated Roman consuls), is that there are two entries for Decimus Fonteius Fronto: one with the date "Between 149 and 151" & the other "c. 151". One of those needs to be removed. (And I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few more duplicates lurking there.) The other is that the name in CIL VIII, 18065 is of "Decimus Fonteius Frontonianus" -- an easy mistake to make. (In his book, Alföldy criticizes another scholar for confusing those same two names.) So there is a mistake there, just not the one you thought. -- llywrch (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I noticed the difference yesterday while checking to see if you'd replied to this. Unfortunately, I can't really consult Alföldy. Not only don't I have access to his work, but since it's written in German, I probably wouldn't benefit much from it if I did. I hesitatingly head to Google Translate when I need to unravel something in PW! It's better at German than Latin, but I can usually figure out some of the Latin without help. Well, assuming that Fronto and Frontinianus aren't the same person, I guess we have another designatus. P Aculeius (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point of my mentioning Alföldy was to assure you that I wasn't insulting you by pointing out they are two different, although very similar, names. (If an expert makes the same mistake, then we amateurs shouldn't be too harsh on ourselves.) As for PW, I find that its greatest usefulness lie in (1) providing citations to the primary sources that I would otherwise easily miss, & (2) sometimes confirming that I have found all of the information available about a given personage. The last is sometimes not as comforting as it might seem: learning that all we know about a given consul is a name & a date undercuts all enthusiasm for writing an article. On a related note, one of my chief complaints of other language Wikipedias is that far too often an article will be little more than a translation of an older version of the English Wikipedia -- which I find disappointing when I know there are better & more recent experts writing in that language on that topic, & those Wikipedians would be doing a better service mining those secondary sources than simply repeating what is in en.wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course, I didn't think you were trying to insult me! You're the expert in this field, and have access to sources that aren't very useful to me, by comparison. I did find an interesting article on JSTOR called, "D Fonteius Fronto: Proconsul (of Asia)" by a certain Decimus Franciscius. It's just two pages, and it makes the case for Fronto being a different person than Frontinianus, although I'm still analyzing the implications. I note, however, that there are abundant inscriptions referring to Frontinianus in the Clauss-Slaby database, and I'm not finding any for Fronto (if you haven't noticed, although I expect you have, you get different, often helpful results if you put the name into the ablative, especially for consuls). Which is not to say that they're the same person and that French is mistaken. Given what I know about Roman naming practices, I'd say that "Frontinianus" was likely the son of a "Fronto". In any case, do you agree that Frontinianus would probably need to be added to the list of designates for 161 (or c. 161)? P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. What I overlooked the first time I looked thru my sources was that while Alföldy states Frontinianus was consul in 162 (held in absentia because he was otherwise attested as still governor in Numidia), & he should have been included in the list, at least one later source doesn't list him as consul that year. I'm wondering if someone between 1977 (when Alföldy wrote his prosopographical book) & now found evidence that he wasn't consul that year. And this means I should check the entries I took from Alföldy once again & make sure I didn't omit any other names he offers as consuls.

Anyway, Frontinianus needs an entry somewhere. I'm not sure what the criteria is to put people on the "undated consuls" list vs. the "designated consuls" list. This is something I've been wondering about for a while, since I've stumbled over a few other designated consuls. Maybe the latter list is for people who were selected to be consuls, but for some reason did not actually hold the fasces. In any case, feel free to add him to the most appropriate of the two lists. -- llywrch (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cossus Cornelius Lentulus (consul AD 25), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cossus Cornelius Lentulus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making good on my plans, I finally devoted today to creating a separate article for the Capitoline Fasti, after spending much of yesterday filling in the tables. They could stand to be better, although I generally like the layout and appearance of the tables. Wish it were easier to set the spacing vertically. Wonder if you could have a look at the article. I know I can be a little precious about my prose (sorry), but I'd like to know if it seems decently written, sourced, and (most importantly) useful. Considering the hours I spent on the tables, I hope it is! I know it overlaps the list of consuls, but my goal was to make the source inscriptions more accessible for easy reference, and I'd like to do something similar with the Ostienses and the minor fasti (possibly combining the shorter ones). I suspect my discussion of the historicity of the Fasti isn't the strongest, and is likely to generate disagreements with the Forsythians. Can you think of any obvious improvements to the structure of the article, or its appearance? P Aculeius (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: Well, this is definitely a needed article; good work. I've been meaning to write something like this for a long while. And it well organized, & competently written. That said, I do have some comments (& thus reveal why I've delayed in writing this & other articles myself.)

• I think you worry too much about "the Forsythians". Somehow Gary Forsythe has acquired a menacing reputation with you, as well as a lot more influence than you think. (Drummond is far more of a "hyper-critical" scholar, & champions some theories I find unconvincing.) I haven't looked at Forsythe's book in months, but IIRC his primary, if only, criticism of the FC is that he believes Livy provides a better version of the consular lists. And you must admit it is lacunose & later than the other three important versions.
• The article would benefit from some more recent sources. Three that I thought of were:
  • Lily Ross Taylor, "The Date of the Capitoline Fasti", Classical Philology, 41 (1946), pp. 1-11
  • Lily Ross Taylor, "Degrassis' Edition of the Consular and Triumphal Fasti", Classical Philology, 45 (1950), pp. 84-95
  • C.J. Simpson, "The Original Site of the Fasti Capitolini", Historia, 42 (1993), pp. 61-81

All should be available thru JSTOR. If you still don't have access to JSTOR, email me & I'll send you pdfs.

• Isn't the latest edition of the FC the one Attilio Degrassi produced? I wish either we had someone who was competent in Italian to help us access his work, or someone on it.wikipedia who was actively using his work. There have been more than a few times I've needed to know what is in his publications.
• I wonder if having a transcript of the Fasti Capitolini is justified including in a Wikipedia article. After all, there is an English translation from an unidentified edition at attilus.org. If so, in my opinion it might fit better on la.wikisource -- if such a thing exists. Andrew Dalby might know the answer.
• On the other hand, AFAIK there is no copy of the Fasti Ostiensis on the Internet, so a transcript of that somewhere would be a good thing. (The version at the Epigraphik Databank is barely useable in the form provided, although better than nothing.) The copy I've been using was edited by Ladislav Vidman (which is entirely in Latin; it's exotic to read a book in Latin published in the last quarter of the 20th century), although I know a more recent edition was published in Italian.

Hope my comments help. Otherwise again, good work. -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lookover, Llywrch! This transcription is in fact based on the CS Databank version, so it should be the latest available. I plan to do the Ostienses as well, but think I'll start with the Fasti Triumphales first. That probably won't take nearly as much work as this one did, so I might be on the Ostienses by next week. I don't have open JSTOR access, but I do have an account and can check out three things at a time. That might be enough, provided I don't need to consult anything else I don't have for a while! In either case, I'll gladly modify what I wrote to take advantage of the newer publications. Once again, thanks for looking over this for me! P Aculeius (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful article. Surprising that it didn't exist before!

To answer the question above, yes, there is a Latin Wikisource, though I don't work on it myself. I don't see a copy of the Fasti Capitolini on it. Andrew Dalby 15:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it takes a lot of patience to transcribe stuff like this into a table! But I'd rather keep it here, where it's more likely to be found, and included in the article about the subject. Working on the Triumphales since yesterday; should be just a little longer, and then I can start on the Ostienses. Llywrch's work on the main list of consuls is very helpful for ensuring I have people under the correct years, since that's often difficult to tell from the original inscriptions. P Aculeius (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Triumphales the day before yesterday, cleaned up a bit yesterday, but still need to check out those sources you mentioned. Finished transcribing the Ostienses, but would appreciate an opinion on the format I used (in my main sandbox) before I add them to the article. I thought about a side-by-side format like in the list of Roman consuls, which would probably have been more faithful to the original, but possibly would have created unnecessary ambiguity, so I put each magistrate on a separate line. Did something similar with the notes section, which was basically anything in the inscription other than the magistrates themselves, using the line breaks from the original, but that makes some of these rather long. Not sure if I treated missing lines/gaps well. Also considered putting date references for consules suffecti in another column, or with the magistracies, by just making that column wider. Would that be better than including them with the magistrates? It might be clearer in cases where multiple suffecti took office at the same time, but is that enough to justify the additional clutter? Let me know if you have any thoughts. P Aculeius (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: after trying a few ideas I came up with what I think is a good result. Could use some help translating the notes column into readable English, if you know someone who could help with that. Posted in the existing article, which I've revised a bit. P Aculeius (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep posting here, but a new problem has reared its head. As you probably recall, we had a problem at one point with people moving these articles to the bare nomen, on the grounds that (gens) was unnecessary disambiguation, even though the bare nomen would invariably refer to individual women for many gentes (theoretically almost all of them). This would make the names of these articles completely unpredictable; users wouldn't be able to guess what to type in for the gens, or whether the nomen led to a page about a person, a gens, or in some cases to other things (towns, institutions, spiders, butterflies). The solution to this seemed to be to title the articles without parentheses, since the word "gens" is usually attached and often included in references to the topic.

Since the most recent kerfuffle, it's apparent that all gens articles should eventually be moved to this style, and all new articles have been written with it for the last several weeks. This is all the more important as we now have other wikipundits insisting that parentheses are the least preferable form of disambiguation. So the new style deflects both groups and is still a natural naming style. Articles that already have the new style shouldn't be moved to the old style; old articles should be moved to the new and better style. That may take a while, and right now I'm focusing on making sure existing articles are written in the proper format, but we should get to that. I urge you not to move the newer articles back to the old style, which is just going to leave them vulnerable to unnecessary criticism from the wikipundits. P Aculeius (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius:Ugh. I hadn't heard there was a "kerfuffle" or other discussion on the matter. (Some people need to spend more time turning those stubs into full-length articles.) I was simply going on the fact most of the articles I'd seen used the style "(gens)" -- which works for me -- & the articles ought to be consistent. (I'll admit it's not the style I'd pick, but it's good enough & not worth quibbling over.) But I'll stop. -- llywrch (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Galeria Fundana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xiphilinus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sextus Attius Suburanus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Procurator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sextus Attius Suburanus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Procurator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch. Thank you for your hard work closing WP:ANRFC discussions! I have fixed the placement of {{Archive top}} for three of your closes. The {{Archive top}} template says:

Place the {{Archive top}} template below the header containing the discussion, then place {{Archive bottom}} at the end of the discussion.

Do not include main section headers: including main headers will disrupt archiving bots.

Here is an example of how it might disrupt an archiving bot:

# First section

{{archive top}}
# Second section
{{archive bottom}}

When the archive bot archives the first section, it will move to the archive all the text between "First section" and "Second section". This includes the {{archive top}} template even though it belongs to the second section.

Just letting you know as I've seen archive bots do this in the past and then the close is in the wrong place. Thanks again for your thoughtful closes at WP:ANRFC.

Cunard (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on this. Parkwells (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On March 8 (International Women's Day), the Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education and artist Shoshana Gugenheim will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about Jewish women artists. Click here for more information. You can also express interest or suggest articles to create or improve here. This event is free and open to the public, and will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participation is welcome in person and remotely (for those outside of Portland). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Saturday, March 10 (11am to 4pm), the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art, feminism, and women. You can read details on the Facebook event page, or this Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, childcare, and refreshments will be provided. Bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, you're welcome to stop by to show your support! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Llywrch. Thought I would call upon your expertise. While making a mini-catalogue (for my own reference) of certain uncommon names found in the CS databank, I ran across a few mentions of a Spurius Oppius who was consul in AD 43. This is interesting to me as a very late example of the name, although there seem to be isolated instances as late as the second or third century in the databank. The table gives his praenomen as Lucius.

On further examination, it looks like the praenomen has been interpolated in some of the inscriptions, but there are two from Herculaneum in which it's written: once as Lucius and once as Spurius. Gallivan has it as Lucius, as you note, but he does not mention any uncertainty. Perhaps the second inscription was not known to him? At any rate, the interpolated entries seem to prefer Spurius, which suggests to me a deliberate choice, for there ought to be some reason. A Google search turned up nothing helpful! Do any of your sources for this period shed any light on why Spurius might be the preferred reading? I see insufficient cause to change it in the table or elsewhere unless some scholarly source can explain why one should be preferred over the other—wishful thinking is not enough! P Aculeius (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius:: From digging around what sources I have, it appears we know the suffect consul Oppius' praenomen from two wax tablets from Herucleanum. And the current expert on what these documents say -- they are in poor condition, & IMHO reading items like wax tablets is as much an art as a science -- is Giuseppe Camodeca. Previously, the initial appearing on them was read as "L"; Camodeca has argued this should be read as an "S" as follows (translation from the Italian via Google):

Surprising and the right reading of the first headline of the first consul: not L., as read by Della Corte and obviously accepted by all, but Sp(urius). Since the Augustan age onwards are no longer known senators, who have brought this first name, widespread only in the late-republican age for members of the Senate, I carefully considered the degree of certainty of this reading: now after the long S absolutely safe (and that can not be confused with an L), a short vertical line appears at the top of which one distinguishes another oblique and even shorter: therefore a P, more than a T. Certainly excluded, in any case, the possibility, more obvious, to read the first name Sex, if only for the insufficient space before the noble.

(Source: Camodeca, "I consoli del 43 e gli Antistii Veteres d'età claudia dalla riedizione delle Tabulae Herculanenses", Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 140 (2002), p. 233)

I haven't translated the entire article, so I don't know if his reconstruction & reasoning is plausible. But he is the current expert on these sources, so I'd say it's a reasonable alternative to "L." (And there's also the possibility that these sources got the praenomen wrong: wrong praenomina in consular dates are not unprecedented.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to view the article on JSTOR just now (I've got limited article views, and I don't read Italian, and this is the only time I'm likely to look at it) and translate several paragraphs the same way that you did, with a little additional detail. It would be presumptuous to say that I agree with Camodeca! But the reasoning seems sound, and I might add that while Lucius was a praenomen of the Oppii, so was Spurius, recalling, as Camodeca points out, not only the praetor of 44 BC, but the decemvir. Something he doesn't mention in dismissing Sextus as a possibility is that it wasn't a regular praenomen of the Oppii; none of those mentioned on the gens page are Sextus, and when I called up the nomen in the C-S databank just now, I only found about six out of a thousand who seem to have been called Sextus Oppius (which of course is actually more than the number of Spuri Oppii, but all of those were prominent in history). So while it wasn't totally unheard of, it falls in the category of names like Titus Julius that just don't fit the main line of the family and are largely confined to provincials and persons living in imperial times. I think it would be safe to change the praenomen in the LoRc, citing to Camodeca, pp. 230, 232, 233 (the full article is pp. 227–236; perhaps a footnote mentioning the earlier reading of Lucius). On the assumption you'll concur, I'll go ahead and do that, and you can edit it if you want to change something. Thanks again for your advice! P Aculeius (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Friday, April 13 (3pm to 6pm), the University of Oregon will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art and feminism. You can learn more at the Dashboard page, or our Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, and snacks will be provided. Please bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, we urge you to stop by to show your support and have snacks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tibullus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latomus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome from the Odin article. despite one of our primary sources on the deity being Roman: Tacitus. Quoting from the article:

• "The earliest records of the Germanic peoples were recorded by the Romans, and in these works Odin is frequently referred to—via a process known as interpretatio romana (where characteristics perceived to be similar by Romans result in identification of a non-Roman god as a Roman deity)—as the Roman god Mercury. The first clear example of this occurs in the Roman historian Tacitus's late 1st-century work Germania, where, writing about the religion of the Suebi (a confederation of Germanic peoples), he comments that "among the gods Mercury is the one they principally worship. They regard it as a religious duty to offer to him, on fixed days, human as well as other sacrificial victims. Hercules and Mars they appease by animal offerings of the permitted kind" and adds that a portion of the Suebi also venerate "Isis". In this instance, Tacitus refers to the god Odin as "Mercury", Thor as "Hercules", and Týr as "Mars", and the identity of the "Isis" of the Suebi has been debated.^[1]"
• "Anthony Birley has noted that Odin's apparent identification with Mercury has little to do with Mercury's classical role of being messenger of the gods, but appears to be due to Mercury's role of psychopomp.^[1] Other contemporary evidence may also have led to the equation of Odin with Mercury; Odin, like Mercury, may have at this time already been pictured with a staff and hat, may have been considered a trader god, and the two may have been seen as parallel in their roles as wandering deities. But their rankings in their respective religious spheres may have been very different.^[2] Also, Tacitus's "among the gods Mercury is the one they principally worship" is an exact quote from Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico (1st century BCE) in which Caesar is referring to the Gauls and not the Germanic peoples. Regarding the Germanic peoples, Caesar states: "[T]hey consider the gods only the ones that they can see, the Sun, Fire and the Moon", which scholars reject as clearly mistaken, regardless of what may have led to the statement.^[1]" Dimadick (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick:, if you believe that Odin should be covered by WPCGR, wouldn't it be more effective to argue this on Talk:Odin than on my talk page? Odin has no obvious connection to Classical studies -- he is a Norse god, & Scandinavia is at best at the edge of the Greco-Roman world, so I doubt I'm the only person who thinks he is entirely unrelated to WPCGR -- so even were you to convince me, this issue will re-emerge. Better to have this conversation on the Talk page & use the ping template to alert me. -- llywrch (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is not attested only in Scandinavian sources, and Tacitus predates any of them by several centuries. These are all quotes from the Odin article. For better or worse, many Celtic or Germanic deities are primarily known through Roman sources. Dimadick (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucius Vitellius the Younger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Feronia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Commentarii de Bello Gallico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fleury

Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (consul 58 BC) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Censor

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Titus Statilius Maximus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heliopolis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure that you haven't forgotten about Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC ;-) Take all the time you need of course! Fram (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not forgotten, although delayed by the weekend when the family expects me to spend time with them. I am working on a second draft of my summary, which I would get done faster if a third volunteer would come forward to help with this. :-/ llywrch (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am definitely not the right person to help you close this, as it would make the close instantly invalid. Thank you for taking this on. Fram (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crepereia (gens), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Negotiator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Marcus Junius Mettius Rufus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nomen

Sextus Calpurnius Agricola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fronto

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thanks to you and @Swarm and Fish and karate: for your well-reasoned close at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018_Infobox_RfC. I know it can't have been easy to have gone through all of the different opinions and !votes here, and I appreciate that you took the time to do so. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to find that Mike Peel had said pretty much what I wanted to say. Thank you for going to the effort of digging through that complicated and contentious RfC. It was extraordinarily helpful that you spent the time to find a consensus for something, rather than just providing yet another no consensus close, which wouldn't do anything to help unite the community. Tamwin (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Llywrch. Noticed your deletion of "Publius" from the middle of this consul's nomenclature, and wondered, "if there were no source, how did I get it there in the first place?" It probably wouldn't have been in the DGRBM, which usually has minimal information on minor Imperial consuls, and was written when complex Roman polyonomy was still utterly baffling to most scholars; and the cited sources, as you say, don't contain it. Just as odd was the redirect with "Publicus" instead. I guessed perhaps I'd taken it from the List of Roman Consuls, but I still wanted to figure out where it came from. Searching the C-S Databank under Bellicius (root Bellici works) didn't produce anything, and I checked the Fasti Potentini twice. But I also had it on a personal list of Imperial consuls I'd tried to draw up from sources I could identify and check (sort of a "what's in the most unimpeachable and available sources"). It's not in PIR—at least not under "Bellicius".

Then inspiration struck. Since partial nomenclatures are sometimes found, I wondered if the explanation might appear under a "Publius Gavidius"... but narrowing my search parameters, I checked the C-S Databank for "Gavidi" and "Tebani", and then I found two inscriptions from uncertain provinces: AE 2012, 1959, which gives the date of an event as: "a(nte) d(iem) VI Idus Iunias / C(aio) Ducenio Proculo / C(aio) Bellico Natale P(ublio) Gavidio Tebaniano co(n)s(ulibus)". AE 2009, 1825, also from an uncertain province, uses the same, but as the name is here reconstructed, it seems less certain. Not sure if the 2009 date means that the current reconstruction predates the publication of the 2012 inscription, in which case there must have been an earlier source for the internal praenomen, which thus far has eluded our searches. But as the 2012 inscription seems to leave no ambiguity (and indeed, it's cited in the List of Roman Consuls as Gallivan's source for Bellico instead of Bellicio, although here I suspect the inscription must be regarded as mistaken, or else simply using an orthographic variant, as his father was a Bellicius, and other inscriptions so give his nomen) and isn't a reconstruction or interpolation, I think there's firm ground for restoring the internal praenomen. However, referring this to you in case you'd already found this and decided that it wasn't to be followed for some reason. P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @P Aculeius:! You found the primary source for this intriguing mystery. The reason for my changes was that I had stumbled across the name in a 1951 article by J.H. Oliver where the second praenomen did not appear. Yet it was given in Wikipedia. I searched my usual references -- not only Gallivan's article you mention but Alison Cooley's Cambridge Guide to Latin Epigraphy, published in 2012, & those did not provide a "Publius"; I assumed I had accidentally added "Publius" due to copying from an adjacent line at some point in compiling. On that basis, I reverted the changes. Then I saw your note this morning.

So I looked a little further on how it entered Wikipedia. Assuming I/we had simply copied the name from the main list, I looked in the history a ways & found it was there when I started revising it back in May 2016. Since the list in that form originated from the German Wikipedia, I looked there. To keep this brief, I found that Mithykos had added "Publius" to the name back in 2013; he was the one who found the new version of the name, but as is his habit failed to provide a source for this change. That he knew of this information is odd because L'Année épigraphique publishes all of the inscriptions for a given year about 3 years afterwards, so AE 2012, 1959 would have been announced in 2015! And I can't access thru JSTOR because they observe a moving embargo wall: the latest issue of L'Année épigraphique I can access is 2012 (which covers inscriptions published in 2009). Maybe Mithykos reads Scripta Classica Israelica (abbreviated SCI), which is where the military diploma was first published in 2012.

I dunno. This is all a little too cutting edge for me, & speaking for myself I'd like to see the commentary on this find first. While military diplomas usually have very accurate texts, & are considered very reliable primary sources, scribes do make mistakes, & I'd like the assurance of an expert that the name is accurately given & item is properly transcribed. Feel free to revert my edit at Bellicia gens, & if there was more than a redirect about this personage I'd add a line about this new form of his name to the article. (As it is, there simply isn't enough information about C. Bellicius Natalis Gavidius Tebanianus ‎to justify writing an article: all we know about him besides he was a consul is the name of his father, his wife (about whom we know just a hair bit more than Tebanianus) & of his son. If someone had access either to Scripta Classica Israelica or even L'Année épigraphique, it might just meet the expectations to justify a separate article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marcus Pupienus Africanus Maximus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gnaeus Claudius Severus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying out some non-admin closures and was wondering if you could review my work. I'm particularly interested in guidance on the closure summaries. I'm also not entirely sure on the best use of the |status= parameter of {{Archive top}}. Feel free to say no, and I can ask someone else. My closures can be found at:

1. Talk:Nonviolence#Merge,
2. Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations/Archives/2018#RfC, and
3. Talk:Living dinosaur#RfC on changing "Living dinosaur" from a standard article to a disambiguation list page.

Thanks! Daask (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daask:, I find using templates always tricky, & when I do a close I have Wikipedia:Closing discussions open while I do it. As for your closures, here are my thoughts:

1. The first closure is straightforward, & I would have closed it the same way you did.
2. The second is more problematical. If I read the discussion correctly, the issue was how to treat Hong Kong & Macau: the issue was raised that these are not independent & sovereign states, but parts of China; Taiwan is mentioned, but only as a secondary issue. Moreover, a quick count of noses shows opinion apparently divided. While you appear to have made the correct call here -- as an uninvolved party, beyond giving too much attention to Taiwan, I have no objection to it -- this is a tricky case. Tricky cases probably should be left for Admins to close, because unhappy parties will look for ways to wriggle out of the call, & complaining that "an Admin should have closed this RfC" & therefore an Admin should reclose it. Despite that most Admins will spend about 15 minutes reviewing it & agree with what you did.
3. As for the "Living dinosaur" page, any comment is moot since someone has turned it into a redirect. IMHO, I suspect this debate is simply one more exchange in the long-running fight over cryptozoology, & any closing is going to leave at least one party unhappy.

Hope these comments help -- llywrch (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quintus Antistius Adventus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaius Curtius Justus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarmizegetusa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Impi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mthethwa and Zwide (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Publius Mummius Sisenna Rutilianus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tivoli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw an old request from you at WP:CGR to translate some French text and I didn't even realize I missed it. It's from about a year ago, but don't want you to think I would intentionally ignore you. SpartaN (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did? [looks] Oh yeah -- "would you have the time to consult Settipani & tell us if (& what) he has to say about these two personages?" I assumed at the time, SpartaN you simply didn't have the time. No problem. Although I'm still curious to know exactly what Settipani has to say in a number of places where he's cited without reference to specific pages. While I suspect a certain banned editor abused used him -- specifically attributing to him a number of fabricated names & relationships -- & from what I've read about him he sounds as if he's a bit too eager to see genealogical connections, I still would like to believe his research is basically sound. Maybe figure out some simple test to isolate the trash attributed to him from what he actually wrote.

But as I said before, only if you have the time & interest. And no real hurry about it either. Thanks in advance if you take this on. -- llywrch (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a preview of the work to go on except for snippets, and I'd hate to translate a small portion of a page out of context (which leads to inaccuracies). I'd buy it to add to my collection and keep up on my French, but it's out of my price range ($308 on Amazon). SpartaN (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just another example of why the Foundation should make available funds for established volunteers to obtain materials for research. :-( -- llywrch (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marcus Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Diana and Fronto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pupienus and Balbinus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pupienus and Balbinus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Ello, and I just replied to your 2010 comment here, so at this rate I suppose we shall chat again in 2026. Do please enjoy excellent health until then. 09:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .Raven (talk • contribs)

Raven, I expect to reply to your comment long before 2026. ;-) llywrch (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daily Kos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Thompson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiStripe for reviewing a total of two Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Acquia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Marcus Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Examination of Apollo Moon photographs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of The Last Ship episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Andrea Garnett

The Last Ship (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Andrea Garnett

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch, I am looking to do some work on a few Romans to try and bring them up to B class. I don't want to joggle your elbow, so is Lucius Minicius Natalis Quadronius Verus one which you would rather I left alone? There are plenty to go at, so don't be shy if you had it ear marked to work on yourself. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Thanks for asking. I consider it a good candidate to not only bring up to B class, but would make for a fine GA candidate, due to Minicius not only being a military figure but one of the few ancient Olympic athletes who is more than a name. (FWIW, there used to be more images in this article; I don't know where they went.) Good luck with this article! -- llywrch (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Species named for Barack Obama, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make+Think+Code and the Pacific Northwest College of Art are hosting a Wikipedia editathon at the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, January 19 from 10am to 2:30pm. The purpose of the event is to make Wikipedia a more vibrant, representative, inclusive and diverse resource. Please visit Wikipedia:Meetup/MakeThinkCode/TheVisibilityProject for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Titus Salvius Rufinus Minicius Opimianus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heraean Games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pausanias (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To commemorate Black History Month, Oregon State University, Wikimedia Nigeria, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, and AfroCROWD are hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon at the Oregon State University Valley Library on Friday, February 8 from 2–5pm. The purpose of the event is to reduce Wikipedia's diversity gap by creating and improving articles about African American culture and history, as well as notable people of African descent and the African diaspora in general. Please visit here for more information. Remote participation is welcome! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) is hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon in the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, March 9 from 10am – 2:30pm. This is a free community event designed to teach people to add and edit information about cis and transgender women and nonbinary folks to Wikipedia. We'll have training sessions, artist talks, snacks, free childcare, and plenty of exciting energy and collaboration! You're welcome to drop in any time during the event. Participants are encouraged to bring their own laptops and charging cables, though if you are not able, computer stations will be available. Please visit this link for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education, in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host the 2nd Annual International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Thursday, March 7 from 4 to 8 pm. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter 18 Jewish women artists into the canon. Support will be provided by an experienced local Wikipedian who will be on site to teach and guide the process. This edit-a-thon will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participants will have an opportunity to select an artist/s ahead of time or on site.

Please visit this link and the meetup page for more information. Thanks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Llywrch/Archive15,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read your message about editors being unappreciated for your work. Here's a gift, Llywrch, on account of your contributions to history on Romans, Greeks, Trebizond, and Ethopia. Thank you! starship.paint (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shewa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Argobba (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) 09:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just saw you had closed a discussion while I was typing a (too) long post in it. As it was a new section, it ended up outside the closed part. Please feel free to remove it if you feel your close covers it, although I proposed stronger action. Have a great day! Jeppiz (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have the same problem when I type a comment that is very long on a discussion page. Sorry about that, Jeppiz. I went ahead & included it in the closed comment so it's part of the record. Same greetings back at you. -- llywrch (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]