Welcome to Wikipedia, P Aculeius! I am Fetchcomms and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{ helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
fetch comms ☛ 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, after seeing a few of your articles at newpage patrol, I think you are ready to have your account flagged as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of doing that. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Awarded on April 20, 2010 to User:P Aculeius for his excellent work on Quintus Pomponius Secundus. Gaius Octavius Princeps ( talk) 22:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC) |
You turned an ancient Roman stub into something informative and sourced. Quintus would be pleased. Thanks for the effort!
Gaius Octavius Princeps (
talk) 22:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 00:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
i am studying the origin of pomponi Paolo Pomponi ( talk) 11:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
Hello P Aculeius, I apologize for the delay but i take a my holiday. Is very interesting what you say to me. I would like you to visit Earthology as i am writing it. I am sure that your question it will be.. but what that match with Pomponia GEN? good question. Well the root of this world it seems to be replicated during the history. Please inform me if you are confident to use google earth i can share as well the wiki project into geo browser and show you that Mr. Pompous Pienomos is a man that can teach history in Geo Space. Of course we have a laboratory of artificial intelligence research and it will be my pleasure to cooperate with a Man that have huge knowledge about Pomp Words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpu ( talk • contribs) 09:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Best Wishes for a Happy New Year! May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Ack! I was leaving new year's greetings the other day, and I had this terrible feeling that in my haste I was skipping someone whose contributions and collegiality I rely on and wanted to acknowledge. You always take the time to make well thought-out comments, and it's much appreciated. Best wishes, Cynwolfe ( talk) 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The Epic Barnstar | ||
I happened across your major expansion of Curiatia (gens) during a recent changes patrol and thought it deserved recognition. Awesome work! Stalwart 111 04:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC) |
... to say after your years of awesome contributions to classics on Wikipedia: Welcome! davidiad { t } 05:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
For improving the improvements to Romulus Informata ob Iniquitatum ( talk) 05:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
For working so much time on improving articles without seeking from the other users to be rewarded for your hard work in Wikipedia. 😇 JeBonSer ( talk | sign) 05:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC) |
The Stub Barnstar | ||
For expanding the Lucumo article with good references. 😇 JeBonSer ( talk | sign) 05:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020! | |
Hello P Aculeius, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
The Civility Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your kind words. ★Trekker ( talk) 16:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! | |
Hello P Aculeius, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atinia (gens) 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.
Chewings72 ( talk) 05:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi P Aculeius! Looking at Annia gens, I notice that some of the filiations are in parentheses--which I assume means the relationship is inferred, not attested--while some I would expect be in parentheses--I know some of these are inferred--aren't. Do you try to note this? Do you care? (I'm content either indicating this or not.) -- llywrch ( talk) 00:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Nope ( diff). My edit summary said "poor style", and that's what it is, as far as I'm concerned.
In Chapter 6 of How Wikipedia Works, the point is expressed this way:
That small style guide is something I co-authored. It goes onto say "Understatement also helps with neutrality", which is also true, and why I think our house style should favour it. Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm. Firstly, here is your edit summary:
Secondly, I'm not often reverted. When I am, I always follow up, because if there is something to be learned, I want to learn it. Not clear I have learned anything so far. I could have cited MOS:PEACOCK, but the range of examples there doesn't cover the particular point.
So, I said nothing about NPOV. There was nothing personal in my edit summary. There was in yours, which was off-beam also.
I _think_ "highly significant" would be better as "very marked", because social distinctions often seem highly significant in an insider way, but have trivial significance to outsiders.
I also think the significance can be dealt with better in the body of the article. In fact if you want a timeline, highly significant -> somewhat significant -> not so significant, I imagine it is more helpful to the reader if you do so in a verbose way. The lead can be concise on such matters. It gets question-begging otherwise.
The last time I had this kind of hostile experience in coming to a user talk page for a revert discussion, it was for replacing a "however" by a "but". Honestly, I think Wikipedia generally needs tighter writing.
Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, that's a certainly a rhetorical mouthful, which does not (however) address two concrete points I made about the wording of patrician (ancient Rome). Let's sum up, beyond the bristling:
If I hadn't thought that my edit was a typical subedit, I wouldn't have made it a minor edit. Charles Matthews ( talk) 04:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hostus Hostilius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caenina.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
It may be of your interest that I merged two articles you wrote, with the result being Appius Claudius Crassus Inregillensis Sabinus. Avilich ( talk) 17:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solar eclipse of July 28, 1851, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corona.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about the revert, I misclicked after realizing too late I was in the wrong place. Avilich ( talk) 22:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
★Trekker (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The complete name of the region where Pisaurum is was called "Umbria et Ager Gallicus": the wiki-map you talk about shows it: it included two different areas, and Pisaurum was in the second one. Pisaurum (please, read about this town, even on wikipedia) has never been an Umbrian town. Even if you want to believe the region denomination was already in use during Accii's life, this WAS NOT an ethnical denomination: Pisaurum was never part of Umbria: was a Picenian town. The complete name of that subregion was but was Ager Gallicus Picenus (it means: ager gallicus previously controlled by Picenians). I think you should find a good source to say that Accii could have Umbrian blood: we couldn't say that Welsh people has Anglic blood because Welsh is in England, could we? Sabinettus ( talk) 18:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Please, the both of you, remember that the administrative reform that creates the Regio Sexta has nothing to do with an ethnic issue: Umbri, as an ethnic group, are not Piceni, and the reform doesn't enroll Piceni into Umbri. Simply, under a merely administrative point of view, with the reform Pisaurus is included in the Regio Sexta, that's all. When talking about people from Pesaro before the reform, you can simply call them Piceni, when talking about people after the reform, you could call them Umbri but only if you attach such an explaination to it (but however I would suggest to avoid confusion, the main and wide shared meaning for "Umbri" is the ethnic one). Greetings :-) -- g ( talk) 12:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The next time you make a rollback of this kind you should bring reasons that have some basis in fact. The image you rolled backed has nothing to do with Roman naming conventions, and as anyone with any knowledge of these matters knows it's not even a realistic image of an Etruscan. Which would be the reason to put the photo of a barbiton player in that page? Did the Etruscans spend all their time playing musical instruments? -- Tursclan ( talk) 18:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hello P Aculeius, I would like to have your input on where (if anywhere) this lady should be listed. Her first name is seemingly disputed (per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) so I am unsure of if she should be listed on any gens page. ★Trekker ( talk) 12:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to say a special thank you for your participation on Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation. I am so grateful! You are intimidatingly awesome! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Aculeius,
I don't know if you are the moderator/owner of Wikipedia.
an anonymous user 2603:8000:cf40:2edb:493e:259e:9091:86c8 states that LEGG means detachments. I found inscriptions where VEXILL LEG means detachments of the legion. In trismegistos LEGG is an abbreviation of Legions ( https://www.trismegistos.org/abb/list.php?abb=LEGG&abb_type=exact&abb_word=&abb_word_type=exact&abb_length=&abb_size=&freq=&comb=AND&search=Search). I think this user is hiding important information by saying that my last edit is a per theory.
Some users in the page of Lucius Castus deletes information coming from a peer-reviewed article on JIES published in 2019. I consider Wikipedia a serious encyclopedia. I hope I'm not wrong. Thanks. Emryswledig ( talk) 07:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
If their sexes were reversed then it would be rape, wouldn't it? I wanted to see if you would say that it "has none of the connotations of the modern concept" if it was Endymion copulating with an unconscious Selene. -- FábioScorpio ( talk) 16:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The expedition of the Count of Abbruzzi in 1906 was the first one Vittorio Stella made in the Ruwenzori, and the third expedition he accompanied the count. The expedition was done to fulfill the wish of Henry M. Stanley ( https://www.nytimes.com/1908/11/15/archives/abruzzis-conquest-of-lofty-ruwenzori-the-great-snow-range-known-to.html)
The resulting publication reports in detail how the expedition fared and which mountaineers before him tried to reach the highest tops of the mountain range. The Count of Abruzzi was the first who covered the whole range and not only reported on the climbing of mountains, but also gave much antropological, glacial, botanical, meteorological and astronomical information, and reported how his fellow expedition-members fared.
The reference should be changed to: [1]
It seems to me that it is strange that you my qualify my Addition of old self-promoting information of limited relevance to the article as the report shows a lot of data on the Ruwenzori that is of importance for several sciences and history.
As such I would like my addition restored with the different reference.
Smi953 ( talk) 10:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Smi953 ( talk) 10:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for amending the article! Luigi Amedeo Giuseppe Maria Ferdinando Francesco, duke d’Abruzzi. In 1906 he was the first to scale the highest summits of the Ruwenzori Range in east-central Africa. His expedition investigated the geology, topography, and glaciology of the range; it mapped the range and named its major peaks, passes, and glaciers. From: Encyclopedia Britannica on https://www.britannica.com/biography/Luigi-Amedeo-Giuseppe-Maria-Ferdinando-Francesco-duca-dAbruzzi
Smi953 ( talk) 10:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Was there any difference in early modern books in the use of ash when writing titles in upper or lower case? 82.37.67.151 ( talk) 13:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Did you bother to click the reference before irresponsibly reverting my edit? It doesn't say anything about lower or upper bodies. Don't restore false citations. If you want that description, change the reference. The night king kills Arya in the winds of winter ( talk) 05:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comment about what is worth merging from this article. As I mentioned in the discussion, it is SO helpful to the merging editor (in this case: me) to get opinions about what is worth moving, especially in a huge giant enormous long list such as this one. I appreciate the time it took for you to answer so fully. Joyous! | Talk 22:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You left this edit summary on
Roman dictator: fixing misused n-dashes and eliminating non-breaking spaces from dates
. I think the adjective "misused" is unapt. The MOS recognises both en-dashes (
MOS:DASH: use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes
) and advises using non-breaking spaces to separate years and era markers (
MOS:ERA: It is advisable to use a non-breaking space
).
Ifly6 (
talk) 22:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
P Aculeius,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (
talk) 21:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Abishe ( talk) 21:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to discuss about the whole "Flavius" thing in the article of Flavia gens, hopefully to reach an understanding. There are not that many sources on the matter, but usally the most cited are Keenan 1973, Cameron 1988 & Salway 1994 (pp. 137-141).The issue with the name is that after the 300s it became no longer a "name" but a symbol of status, something like a courtesy title. The situation kinda reminds me of the " Sir" honorific. Many biographies here (e.g. Paul McCartney) have "Sir" alongside the subject's name, but it's quite obvious that "Sir" is not supposed to be a part of their actual name. In this case Flavius became an honorific that showed that you had a high social status, meaning that it was not really treated as a "name". This change appears to have happened shortly after the beginning of Constantine I's sole rule in 324, since a sudden amount of "Flavii" started to appear after that date (notably consuls).
Yes, I know no other gentes article makes these distinctions between actual members of the gens and such, but in this particular case I believe something should be done, as it's an special case. I don't think the "Flavii" after the Constantinian dynasty should be included, because if we treat "Flavius" as a proper name then we would have to add the hundreds of consuls, generals, officers and kings that used it (and that would be a big mess). Regards. Tintero21 ( talk) 08:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, it's me, again. I was just wondering what you think is the proper way to communicate what I want. I believe the article should elaborate a bit more on the sudden increase of Flavii in the later empire. In my last edit I just tried to give the same information found in the nomen gentilicium article (about how nomina lost their meaning as family surnames and could be changed to indicate status). Tintero21 ( talk) 07:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
You reversed my edit so quickly (within a few seconds) I am not convinced you can have spent more than a few moments considering the point. I feel you're creating the impression that Wikipedia is a personal fiefdom in which you dismiss anything you don't like on a whim and just delete it. In my very long experience as a published author, the most dispiriting and usually unhelpful editing by an editor is that executed in haste, because it usually requires reversal or substantial amendment. This is in marked contrast to considered and constructive editing. The Greek lamp to which you refer you removed in an earlier edit, though in fact it is so modern a reference it can be left out. The provenance and nature of the inscriptions is relevant to the discussion on the page because they don't just come generally from Rome. Their incompleteness is relevant since it is only one of the complete two that can be traced back to multiple pre-1713 publications, and the two complete ones come from a very specific location which was famous and therefore why they were prominently published - the one found before 1713 being the important one (in fact published back at least to 1570); this is of manifest relevance to why they name was available. You also dismissed as 'patent nonsense' some earlier additions based on what seemed a wholly subjective assessment on your part of two 17th century sources. The books exist and that's what they say, amounting to the only contemporary written reference to the discovery of a hoard of forged pastiche gold Roman coins - one may question their reliability but is it a Wikipedia editor's job to suppress something simply because they don't like it? I thought the point of Wikipedia was to provide an authoritative and substantiated account of what information there is. In fact that information has ben welcomed by one of the most prominent museum coins and medals departments in the world.
In the end it becomes pointless contributing to Wikipedia if something that takes hours to put together is cut out in a moment by an editor who clearly isn't familiar with the material and hasn't spent the time considering its merits. I spent a lot of time on this material. If you can't be bothered to spend any time on editing it, I'd question your commitment to Wikipedia. I'm not going to engage in an argumentative spat; apparently it's your prerogative to do what you like - I just won't bother with Wikipedia, just as I wouldn't bother with a book editor who acted in the same way. Junius Avitus ( talk) 16:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
...on classical matters, including on subjects relating to Roman names. I would ask that you support encouragements (edits) that seek to move that and related articles toward being compliant with WP policies and guidelines, including WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. At present, readers are asked in many articles on the classics (and maths, etc) to take in material that is based simply in the knowledge and experience of an editor or small group of editors, with no traceability to good scholarly secondary sources. I ask this freewheeling for all non-"sky is blue" historical and etymologic material begin to move away from our interpreting primary sources, and displaying our knowledge, to our clearly presenting the scholarly ideas available on these subjects, from secondary sources. With regard, an educator. 67.167.8.18 ( talk) 15:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Noticed that you reverted the change I made to the page on Titus Larcius though I'm not sure I agree with it.
When referring to his family in the article the word "at" was originally used - "his family living at Rome" - but this to me does not sound right.
The man and his family more than likely lived inside the city given his status in Roman society, not to mention that I'm sure that in common language most people would refer to someone or their family living "in" a city rather than "at" it.
For example - "he lives in London", "his family lives in London", "whose family lives in London" - where as "at" referring to a place in the context of describing where someone or their family lives would be better served in a sentence such as - "he lived at the castle in Stockholm" or "his family lived at the lumber mill in Saskatchewan".
Rome was a city and what we would define as a country (or at the very least a city-state) at the same time so saying they lived "at" Rome to me is not proper grammar. I am not a native speaker, but to my ears and from what I've found it should be "in" and not "at" when looking at the context of the sentence.
I hope this did not come off as too antagonistic, was not my intention if so. I merely wish to open a dialogue with you regarding this and reach a consensus.
//"Meade" MeadeIndeed ( talk) 20:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
It may be validly sourced to a very eminent author, but its actual relevance to the article seems rather minimal... AnonMoos ( talk) 22:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Just about every ancient/Roman article I have come across uses DMY - including FLs such as List of cities founded by Alexander the Great and GA such as Alexander the Great - so why are you opposed to it on the Justin article? Giant Snowman 15:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aresas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croton.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Yep, I totally see what I missed re: claim vs claimed. I think that indicates ambiguity in the wording, but that’s not my game here, so reversion for sure returns it to proper subject/verb agreement. Thanks! Huskerdru ( talk) 01:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I think you are right. A few days ago I drafted an ANI report on a certain editor, on grounds of WP:BLUDGEONing the Ptolemy RM by trying to change things elsewhere to influence the outcome of the RM. But I withheld submitting it. It is a unfortunate pattern of behavior. He performed similar stunts during the "Muslim conquest of Spain" RM to aggressively achieve his preferred outcome, and I have documented that too. I think you're right on his intention in this as well. But I am not sure it is worthwhile pointing that out and getting into that in the RM itself. Walrasiad ( talk) 19:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Al-Lat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manat.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you help me? I've just discovered that someone has made a colossally misguided edit to the thingy (see how I've forgotten my WP terminology?) that appears at the top of articles such as Religion in ancient Rome and Glossary of ancient Roman religion. They've replaced the excellent representation of Roman sacrifice with an image of Cybele. Good image, and of course Cybele is signficant. But not the best representation of religion in ancient Rome! I don't remember how to get to these… these… graphic things to edit or discuss them. I don't see a discussion at the Greece & Rome project page, and something this major should definitely be discussed. Cynwolfe ( talk) 00:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi P Aculeius. Hope you're doing well. I have just created an SPI [2] which might be of interest to you, since you seem to be well acquainted with the editing history at Gelae (Scythian tribe). Basically, if you have more evidence in mind, that would be greatly appreciated. Bests. HistoryofIran ( talk) 16:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, WJOS-LD, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 17:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 ( talk) 06:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 ( talk) 22:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Aculeius, I have been editing some gente articles again recently, and it struck me that while I have always been very grateful for you taking a second look at my edits and improving on them (especially in terms of citations) I started to wonder if maybe you find this tiresome, am I taking your cleanups for granted? I don't want you to grow annoyed at me for not using the common citation method, I am not very familiar with the one used on most gens articles and I feel like I've been a bit lazy and maybe its finally time for me to learn it. ★Trekker ( talk) 15:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 ( talk) 19:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Did you look at the moments I cited? Marcus Markup ( talk) 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Utilia gens. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on talk pages or project pages such as the Teahouse. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. - Arjayay ( talk) 13:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've opened a new topic for discussion at /info/en/?search=Talk:Spurius_Cassius_Vecellinus#Edit_war -- Quuxplusone ( talk) 16:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I found a picture of an Ipotane on Google, so I figured I'd add it here. I don't understand why you put the line drawing back :sadface: Sliced Up Peaches in a Can ( talk) 07:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I have thought about what you wrote. My attention was first called to the article by seeing some unambiguous vandalism, which you have reverted. Having seen that vandalism, I checked other entries on the list, with the result which I described. I had no reason to realise that you were guarding the page as assiduously as you have now made clear is the case, and therefore no way of distinguishing correct but unsourced entries from false ones, such as the vandalism I had seen. The fact that for EVERY example I checked I was unable to find verification did not encourage me to give the benefit of the doubt. However, my searches were really rather minimal, as in each case I searched only for the name in the list plus the word "gens", whereas obviously I should have tried other search terms, such as "nomen gentilicum". If I chose to insist on sticking strictly to policy I could insist on removing the material again as unsourced, but I don't think doing that at present would be helpful. JBW ( talk) 09:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
When I wrote the message above, I had seen your message on my talk page, but not read it apart from the opening words. I rushed over to this page without reading it, because I wanted to quickly get rid of my earlier message here, which under the circumstances I now saw as unhelpful, and replace it with a brief description of my more recent thoughts on the matter. I have now read the whole of your message on my talk page. Thank you for giving me such a full and thoughtful account of the relevant issues. It was very interesting and informative. ☺ JBW ( talk) 10:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
★Trekker (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec14c}} to your friends' talk pages.
★Trekker ( talk) 10:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Season's Greetings | ||
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
Here's to a 2024 full of intriguing discoveries …
I don't know what Father Time's looking at,
but I appreciate Wikipedia editors like you.
Cynwolfe (
talk)
Time (1810) by Pieter Christoffel Wonder
Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
P Aculeius,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 18:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
If you do not revert this edit [3], I will report you to WP:ANI. One thing is disputing the content of an article and another is disregarding other editors' concerns, specially knowing that the topic has been controverisal in the past. I've started a discussion in the talk page but I will not continue participating unless you undo your edit. I highly recommend you to do so because you've broken the three-revert rule. I have too if this is interpreted as a revert [4] (I don't think it is), but I don't mind if I get blocked too. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 23:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
You are removing innocuous editions by crudely calling them vandalism.
There is no vandalism or anything negative in adding that "the origin of the Ulpia gens is Umbria", instead of saying that "the Ulpii come from Umbria", which is quite generic and even misleading.
Your recent interactions with other users show that you use inflammatory language. Whatever you have against Spain, keep it for your personal sphere, not here.
I warn you that you are about to violate the 3RR. 46.222.234.189 ( talk) 17:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
User:P Aculeius, this guy who warned you and vandalised the Ulpia gens page is a well-known gaslighting user and sock-puppetter who systematically accuses others of doing what he is doing. He violated basically every rule of wikipedia. Vandalism, NPOV, peacock, socks, insults to other users, everything. He is a Spanish suprematist obsessed with genetics and with the idea of that any mention of other countries has to disappear if there's Spain involved (basically wanted to turn wikipedia into his pravda). He has had a vast network of socks and IPs to poison wikipedia with his agenda. Whoever goes against him has been accused by him of being an Italian, British, Portuguese, Islamic nationalist etc etc. See User:JamesOredan and User:Venezia Friulano. Just to inform you. Barjimoa ( talk) 11:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Publius. I’ve noticed that some time ago you took to task to drastically reduce the list editio princeps by creating three new lists ( list of editiones principes in Latin list of editiones principes in Greek, etc.), since the original one had become rather cumbersone. I would like to hear your opinion concerning some work on the articles that I have in mind: I was thinking of splitting the Greek and Latin lists by creating one for “Medieval Latin” and the other for “Byzantine Greek” (600-1450 for both).
I also wanted to know your thoughts concerning the removal of the list that is found at editio princeps; I’ve noticed that you put it there, but I have strong doubts concerning its utility and find it, I’m afraid, pleonastic as it repeats information from the other lists and also marred by POV (unavoidably, since, just to make an example, in a selection how to explain exclusions like Procopius, Euclid, Plotinus and inclusions like Stephanus of Byzantium and Zonaras?). From what I get from the article’s talk, you weren’t totally sure about the list’s need and anyways you meant it shorter than it currently is.
I’ll be very grateful for any advice you can give me and sorry if this message came rather wordy. Aldux ( talk) 03:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hubert Klyne Headley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Langley, British Columbia.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @ P Aculeius. Thank you for your cleanup in the opening section of Pan (god). Since I try only to make edits I can justify, I wanted to say a little more about my revert that started the process.
First, I am wary of deriving information about one topic from a source about another. The scholars compiling that book about pastoral drama presumably researched Greco-Roman mythology, but it is not necessarily their area of expertise. There is a danger of the information being truncated or distorted in the process of their taking it from its original context. My concern was amplified because the addition in question was made by an editor with a history of citing books tangentially related to the article being edited.
Second, unhappy experience has taught me never to trust secondhand renderings of Roman mythology. Historically the topic has been treated in a careless and disrespectful manner, and modern non-experts have not shaken off the habit of ignoring nuance. The seemingly uncontroversial statement that Pan was worshipped by the Romans becomes, upon consulting proper sources, a complex business of the native Arcadian god Pan interacting with three or more rustic Roman deities.
Thank you for your time. I have come, not in a spirit of combat, but because this business raised points that seemed worth airing. ManuelKomnenos ( talk) 15:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
wrong, implausible, or patent nonsense, and in this case that translated sound principles into an act of excessive zeal. ManuelKomnenos ( talk) 17:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
the native Arcadian god Pan interacting with three or more rustic Roman deities), and seems (to me) to be true enough and to hardly need a source at all. In any case, I want to support P. Aculeius's view here. When an editor believes content to be both true (enough?) and uncontroversial, but inadequately sourced, then it is better to simply leave things the way they are, rather than deleting it. Of course, best of all (as P Aculeius has done) is to find better sourcing, and (if needed) to rewrite it to include any missing nuances. Regards Paul August ☎ 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
In these two edits you have restored original research to the Franglais article in the form of six example sentences written in a combination of French and English. After I removed the unsourced material, you immediately restored it, claiming WP:BLUESKY, and that they are "patently obvious" and "do not require a citation". That is merely your opinion, in support of several examples which are half in a foreign language; about as far from BLUESKY as you can get. I have already issued a formal WP:CHALLENGE to source these examples, or to leave them out, and quoted our WP:Verifiability policy to you:
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. ... Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.
but in response you immediately reinserted them again.
It is not up to you (or any editor) to create content that is unsourced and add them to a Wikipedia article; in this case, I believe you did not create them, but merely restored content created by some other user, but the effect is the same: by restoring the examples, you take responsibility for them, and if you want to keep them, they must be sourced; there is no alternative. Verifiability policy is clear on this point and the WP:BURDEN is now on you to source them. Please either source them now, or revert your last edit. Failure to do so will land you either at the Edit-warring noticeboard for repeatedly inserting the same material that another editor objects to, or at WP:ANI for refusing to adhere to the requirements of our core policy of WP:Verifiability when a request to do so has been issued. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 22:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, P Aculeius! I am Fetchcomms and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{ helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
fetch comms ☛ 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, after seeing a few of your articles at newpage patrol, I think you are ready to have your account flagged as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of doing that. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Awarded on April 20, 2010 to User:P Aculeius for his excellent work on Quintus Pomponius Secundus. Gaius Octavius Princeps ( talk) 22:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC) |
You turned an ancient Roman stub into something informative and sourced. Quintus would be pleased. Thanks for the effort!
Gaius Octavius Princeps (
talk) 22:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 00:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
i am studying the origin of pomponi Paolo Pomponi ( talk) 11:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
Hello P Aculeius, I apologize for the delay but i take a my holiday. Is very interesting what you say to me. I would like you to visit Earthology as i am writing it. I am sure that your question it will be.. but what that match with Pomponia GEN? good question. Well the root of this world it seems to be replicated during the history. Please inform me if you are confident to use google earth i can share as well the wiki project into geo browser and show you that Mr. Pompous Pienomos is a man that can teach history in Geo Space. Of course we have a laboratory of artificial intelligence research and it will be my pleasure to cooperate with a Man that have huge knowledge about Pomp Words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpu ( talk • contribs) 09:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Best Wishes for a Happy New Year! May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Ack! I was leaving new year's greetings the other day, and I had this terrible feeling that in my haste I was skipping someone whose contributions and collegiality I rely on and wanted to acknowledge. You always take the time to make well thought-out comments, and it's much appreciated. Best wishes, Cynwolfe ( talk) 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The Epic Barnstar | ||
I happened across your major expansion of Curiatia (gens) during a recent changes patrol and thought it deserved recognition. Awesome work! Stalwart 111 04:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC) |
... to say after your years of awesome contributions to classics on Wikipedia: Welcome! davidiad { t } 05:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
For improving the improvements to Romulus Informata ob Iniquitatum ( talk) 05:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
For working so much time on improving articles without seeking from the other users to be rewarded for your hard work in Wikipedia. 😇 JeBonSer ( talk | sign) 05:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC) |
The Stub Barnstar | ||
For expanding the Lucumo article with good references. 😇 JeBonSer ( talk | sign) 05:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020! | |
Hello P Aculeius, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
The Civility Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your kind words. ★Trekker ( talk) 16:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! | |
Hello P Aculeius, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atinia (gens) 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.
Chewings72 ( talk) 05:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi P Aculeius! Looking at Annia gens, I notice that some of the filiations are in parentheses--which I assume means the relationship is inferred, not attested--while some I would expect be in parentheses--I know some of these are inferred--aren't. Do you try to note this? Do you care? (I'm content either indicating this or not.) -- llywrch ( talk) 00:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Nope ( diff). My edit summary said "poor style", and that's what it is, as far as I'm concerned.
In Chapter 6 of How Wikipedia Works, the point is expressed this way:
That small style guide is something I co-authored. It goes onto say "Understatement also helps with neutrality", which is also true, and why I think our house style should favour it. Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm. Firstly, here is your edit summary:
Secondly, I'm not often reverted. When I am, I always follow up, because if there is something to be learned, I want to learn it. Not clear I have learned anything so far. I could have cited MOS:PEACOCK, but the range of examples there doesn't cover the particular point.
So, I said nothing about NPOV. There was nothing personal in my edit summary. There was in yours, which was off-beam also.
I _think_ "highly significant" would be better as "very marked", because social distinctions often seem highly significant in an insider way, but have trivial significance to outsiders.
I also think the significance can be dealt with better in the body of the article. In fact if you want a timeline, highly significant -> somewhat significant -> not so significant, I imagine it is more helpful to the reader if you do so in a verbose way. The lead can be concise on such matters. It gets question-begging otherwise.
The last time I had this kind of hostile experience in coming to a user talk page for a revert discussion, it was for replacing a "however" by a "but". Honestly, I think Wikipedia generally needs tighter writing.
Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, that's a certainly a rhetorical mouthful, which does not (however) address two concrete points I made about the wording of patrician (ancient Rome). Let's sum up, beyond the bristling:
If I hadn't thought that my edit was a typical subedit, I wouldn't have made it a minor edit. Charles Matthews ( talk) 04:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hostus Hostilius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caenina.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
It may be of your interest that I merged two articles you wrote, with the result being Appius Claudius Crassus Inregillensis Sabinus. Avilich ( talk) 17:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solar eclipse of July 28, 1851, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corona.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about the revert, I misclicked after realizing too late I was in the wrong place. Avilich ( talk) 22:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
★Trekker (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The complete name of the region where Pisaurum is was called "Umbria et Ager Gallicus": the wiki-map you talk about shows it: it included two different areas, and Pisaurum was in the second one. Pisaurum (please, read about this town, even on wikipedia) has never been an Umbrian town. Even if you want to believe the region denomination was already in use during Accii's life, this WAS NOT an ethnical denomination: Pisaurum was never part of Umbria: was a Picenian town. The complete name of that subregion was but was Ager Gallicus Picenus (it means: ager gallicus previously controlled by Picenians). I think you should find a good source to say that Accii could have Umbrian blood: we couldn't say that Welsh people has Anglic blood because Welsh is in England, could we? Sabinettus ( talk) 18:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Please, the both of you, remember that the administrative reform that creates the Regio Sexta has nothing to do with an ethnic issue: Umbri, as an ethnic group, are not Piceni, and the reform doesn't enroll Piceni into Umbri. Simply, under a merely administrative point of view, with the reform Pisaurus is included in the Regio Sexta, that's all. When talking about people from Pesaro before the reform, you can simply call them Piceni, when talking about people after the reform, you could call them Umbri but only if you attach such an explaination to it (but however I would suggest to avoid confusion, the main and wide shared meaning for "Umbri" is the ethnic one). Greetings :-) -- g ( talk) 12:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The next time you make a rollback of this kind you should bring reasons that have some basis in fact. The image you rolled backed has nothing to do with Roman naming conventions, and as anyone with any knowledge of these matters knows it's not even a realistic image of an Etruscan. Which would be the reason to put the photo of a barbiton player in that page? Did the Etruscans spend all their time playing musical instruments? -- Tursclan ( talk) 18:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hello P Aculeius, I would like to have your input on where (if anywhere) this lady should be listed. Her first name is seemingly disputed (per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) so I am unsure of if she should be listed on any gens page. ★Trekker ( talk) 12:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to say a special thank you for your participation on Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation. I am so grateful! You are intimidatingly awesome! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Aculeius,
I don't know if you are the moderator/owner of Wikipedia.
an anonymous user 2603:8000:cf40:2edb:493e:259e:9091:86c8 states that LEGG means detachments. I found inscriptions where VEXILL LEG means detachments of the legion. In trismegistos LEGG is an abbreviation of Legions ( https://www.trismegistos.org/abb/list.php?abb=LEGG&abb_type=exact&abb_word=&abb_word_type=exact&abb_length=&abb_size=&freq=&comb=AND&search=Search). I think this user is hiding important information by saying that my last edit is a per theory.
Some users in the page of Lucius Castus deletes information coming from a peer-reviewed article on JIES published in 2019. I consider Wikipedia a serious encyclopedia. I hope I'm not wrong. Thanks. Emryswledig ( talk) 07:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
If their sexes were reversed then it would be rape, wouldn't it? I wanted to see if you would say that it "has none of the connotations of the modern concept" if it was Endymion copulating with an unconscious Selene. -- FábioScorpio ( talk) 16:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The expedition of the Count of Abbruzzi in 1906 was the first one Vittorio Stella made in the Ruwenzori, and the third expedition he accompanied the count. The expedition was done to fulfill the wish of Henry M. Stanley ( https://www.nytimes.com/1908/11/15/archives/abruzzis-conquest-of-lofty-ruwenzori-the-great-snow-range-known-to.html)
The resulting publication reports in detail how the expedition fared and which mountaineers before him tried to reach the highest tops of the mountain range. The Count of Abruzzi was the first who covered the whole range and not only reported on the climbing of mountains, but also gave much antropological, glacial, botanical, meteorological and astronomical information, and reported how his fellow expedition-members fared.
The reference should be changed to: [1]
It seems to me that it is strange that you my qualify my Addition of old self-promoting information of limited relevance to the article as the report shows a lot of data on the Ruwenzori that is of importance for several sciences and history.
As such I would like my addition restored with the different reference.
Smi953 ( talk) 10:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Smi953 ( talk) 10:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for amending the article! Luigi Amedeo Giuseppe Maria Ferdinando Francesco, duke d’Abruzzi. In 1906 he was the first to scale the highest summits of the Ruwenzori Range in east-central Africa. His expedition investigated the geology, topography, and glaciology of the range; it mapped the range and named its major peaks, passes, and glaciers. From: Encyclopedia Britannica on https://www.britannica.com/biography/Luigi-Amedeo-Giuseppe-Maria-Ferdinando-Francesco-duca-dAbruzzi
Smi953 ( talk) 10:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Was there any difference in early modern books in the use of ash when writing titles in upper or lower case? 82.37.67.151 ( talk) 13:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Did you bother to click the reference before irresponsibly reverting my edit? It doesn't say anything about lower or upper bodies. Don't restore false citations. If you want that description, change the reference. The night king kills Arya in the winds of winter ( talk) 05:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comment about what is worth merging from this article. As I mentioned in the discussion, it is SO helpful to the merging editor (in this case: me) to get opinions about what is worth moving, especially in a huge giant enormous long list such as this one. I appreciate the time it took for you to answer so fully. Joyous! | Talk 22:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You left this edit summary on
Roman dictator: fixing misused n-dashes and eliminating non-breaking spaces from dates
. I think the adjective "misused" is unapt. The MOS recognises both en-dashes (
MOS:DASH: use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes
) and advises using non-breaking spaces to separate years and era markers (
MOS:ERA: It is advisable to use a non-breaking space
).
Ifly6 (
talk) 22:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
P Aculeius,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (
talk) 21:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Abishe ( talk) 21:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to discuss about the whole "Flavius" thing in the article of Flavia gens, hopefully to reach an understanding. There are not that many sources on the matter, but usally the most cited are Keenan 1973, Cameron 1988 & Salway 1994 (pp. 137-141).The issue with the name is that after the 300s it became no longer a "name" but a symbol of status, something like a courtesy title. The situation kinda reminds me of the " Sir" honorific. Many biographies here (e.g. Paul McCartney) have "Sir" alongside the subject's name, but it's quite obvious that "Sir" is not supposed to be a part of their actual name. In this case Flavius became an honorific that showed that you had a high social status, meaning that it was not really treated as a "name". This change appears to have happened shortly after the beginning of Constantine I's sole rule in 324, since a sudden amount of "Flavii" started to appear after that date (notably consuls).
Yes, I know no other gentes article makes these distinctions between actual members of the gens and such, but in this particular case I believe something should be done, as it's an special case. I don't think the "Flavii" after the Constantinian dynasty should be included, because if we treat "Flavius" as a proper name then we would have to add the hundreds of consuls, generals, officers and kings that used it (and that would be a big mess). Regards. Tintero21 ( talk) 08:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, it's me, again. I was just wondering what you think is the proper way to communicate what I want. I believe the article should elaborate a bit more on the sudden increase of Flavii in the later empire. In my last edit I just tried to give the same information found in the nomen gentilicium article (about how nomina lost their meaning as family surnames and could be changed to indicate status). Tintero21 ( talk) 07:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
You reversed my edit so quickly (within a few seconds) I am not convinced you can have spent more than a few moments considering the point. I feel you're creating the impression that Wikipedia is a personal fiefdom in which you dismiss anything you don't like on a whim and just delete it. In my very long experience as a published author, the most dispiriting and usually unhelpful editing by an editor is that executed in haste, because it usually requires reversal or substantial amendment. This is in marked contrast to considered and constructive editing. The Greek lamp to which you refer you removed in an earlier edit, though in fact it is so modern a reference it can be left out. The provenance and nature of the inscriptions is relevant to the discussion on the page because they don't just come generally from Rome. Their incompleteness is relevant since it is only one of the complete two that can be traced back to multiple pre-1713 publications, and the two complete ones come from a very specific location which was famous and therefore why they were prominently published - the one found before 1713 being the important one (in fact published back at least to 1570); this is of manifest relevance to why they name was available. You also dismissed as 'patent nonsense' some earlier additions based on what seemed a wholly subjective assessment on your part of two 17th century sources. The books exist and that's what they say, amounting to the only contemporary written reference to the discovery of a hoard of forged pastiche gold Roman coins - one may question their reliability but is it a Wikipedia editor's job to suppress something simply because they don't like it? I thought the point of Wikipedia was to provide an authoritative and substantiated account of what information there is. In fact that information has ben welcomed by one of the most prominent museum coins and medals departments in the world.
In the end it becomes pointless contributing to Wikipedia if something that takes hours to put together is cut out in a moment by an editor who clearly isn't familiar with the material and hasn't spent the time considering its merits. I spent a lot of time on this material. If you can't be bothered to spend any time on editing it, I'd question your commitment to Wikipedia. I'm not going to engage in an argumentative spat; apparently it's your prerogative to do what you like - I just won't bother with Wikipedia, just as I wouldn't bother with a book editor who acted in the same way. Junius Avitus ( talk) 16:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
...on classical matters, including on subjects relating to Roman names. I would ask that you support encouragements (edits) that seek to move that and related articles toward being compliant with WP policies and guidelines, including WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. At present, readers are asked in many articles on the classics (and maths, etc) to take in material that is based simply in the knowledge and experience of an editor or small group of editors, with no traceability to good scholarly secondary sources. I ask this freewheeling for all non-"sky is blue" historical and etymologic material begin to move away from our interpreting primary sources, and displaying our knowledge, to our clearly presenting the scholarly ideas available on these subjects, from secondary sources. With regard, an educator. 67.167.8.18 ( talk) 15:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Noticed that you reverted the change I made to the page on Titus Larcius though I'm not sure I agree with it.
When referring to his family in the article the word "at" was originally used - "his family living at Rome" - but this to me does not sound right.
The man and his family more than likely lived inside the city given his status in Roman society, not to mention that I'm sure that in common language most people would refer to someone or their family living "in" a city rather than "at" it.
For example - "he lives in London", "his family lives in London", "whose family lives in London" - where as "at" referring to a place in the context of describing where someone or their family lives would be better served in a sentence such as - "he lived at the castle in Stockholm" or "his family lived at the lumber mill in Saskatchewan".
Rome was a city and what we would define as a country (or at the very least a city-state) at the same time so saying they lived "at" Rome to me is not proper grammar. I am not a native speaker, but to my ears and from what I've found it should be "in" and not "at" when looking at the context of the sentence.
I hope this did not come off as too antagonistic, was not my intention if so. I merely wish to open a dialogue with you regarding this and reach a consensus.
//"Meade" MeadeIndeed ( talk) 20:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
It may be validly sourced to a very eminent author, but its actual relevance to the article seems rather minimal... AnonMoos ( talk) 22:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Just about every ancient/Roman article I have come across uses DMY - including FLs such as List of cities founded by Alexander the Great and GA such as Alexander the Great - so why are you opposed to it on the Justin article? Giant Snowman 15:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aresas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croton.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Yep, I totally see what I missed re: claim vs claimed. I think that indicates ambiguity in the wording, but that’s not my game here, so reversion for sure returns it to proper subject/verb agreement. Thanks! Huskerdru ( talk) 01:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I think you are right. A few days ago I drafted an ANI report on a certain editor, on grounds of WP:BLUDGEONing the Ptolemy RM by trying to change things elsewhere to influence the outcome of the RM. But I withheld submitting it. It is a unfortunate pattern of behavior. He performed similar stunts during the "Muslim conquest of Spain" RM to aggressively achieve his preferred outcome, and I have documented that too. I think you're right on his intention in this as well. But I am not sure it is worthwhile pointing that out and getting into that in the RM itself. Walrasiad ( talk) 19:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Al-Lat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manat.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you help me? I've just discovered that someone has made a colossally misguided edit to the thingy (see how I've forgotten my WP terminology?) that appears at the top of articles such as Religion in ancient Rome and Glossary of ancient Roman religion. They've replaced the excellent representation of Roman sacrifice with an image of Cybele. Good image, and of course Cybele is signficant. But not the best representation of religion in ancient Rome! I don't remember how to get to these… these… graphic things to edit or discuss them. I don't see a discussion at the Greece & Rome project page, and something this major should definitely be discussed. Cynwolfe ( talk) 00:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi P Aculeius. Hope you're doing well. I have just created an SPI [2] which might be of interest to you, since you seem to be well acquainted with the editing history at Gelae (Scythian tribe). Basically, if you have more evidence in mind, that would be greatly appreciated. Bests. HistoryofIran ( talk) 16:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, WJOS-LD, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 17:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 ( talk) 06:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 ( talk) 22:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Aculeius, I have been editing some gente articles again recently, and it struck me that while I have always been very grateful for you taking a second look at my edits and improving on them (especially in terms of citations) I started to wonder if maybe you find this tiresome, am I taking your cleanups for granted? I don't want you to grow annoyed at me for not using the common citation method, I am not very familiar with the one used on most gens articles and I feel like I've been a bit lazy and maybe its finally time for me to learn it. ★Trekker ( talk) 15:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 ( talk) 19:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Did you look at the moments I cited? Marcus Markup ( talk) 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Utilia gens. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on talk pages or project pages such as the Teahouse. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. - Arjayay ( talk) 13:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've opened a new topic for discussion at /info/en/?search=Talk:Spurius_Cassius_Vecellinus#Edit_war -- Quuxplusone ( talk) 16:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I found a picture of an Ipotane on Google, so I figured I'd add it here. I don't understand why you put the line drawing back :sadface: Sliced Up Peaches in a Can ( talk) 07:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I have thought about what you wrote. My attention was first called to the article by seeing some unambiguous vandalism, which you have reverted. Having seen that vandalism, I checked other entries on the list, with the result which I described. I had no reason to realise that you were guarding the page as assiduously as you have now made clear is the case, and therefore no way of distinguishing correct but unsourced entries from false ones, such as the vandalism I had seen. The fact that for EVERY example I checked I was unable to find verification did not encourage me to give the benefit of the doubt. However, my searches were really rather minimal, as in each case I searched only for the name in the list plus the word "gens", whereas obviously I should have tried other search terms, such as "nomen gentilicum". If I chose to insist on sticking strictly to policy I could insist on removing the material again as unsourced, but I don't think doing that at present would be helpful. JBW ( talk) 09:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
When I wrote the message above, I had seen your message on my talk page, but not read it apart from the opening words. I rushed over to this page without reading it, because I wanted to quickly get rid of my earlier message here, which under the circumstances I now saw as unhelpful, and replace it with a brief description of my more recent thoughts on the matter. I have now read the whole of your message on my talk page. Thank you for giving me such a full and thoughtful account of the relevant issues. It was very interesting and informative. ☺ JBW ( talk) 10:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
★Trekker (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec14c}} to your friends' talk pages.
★Trekker ( talk) 10:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Season's Greetings | ||
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
Here's to a 2024 full of intriguing discoveries …
I don't know what Father Time's looking at,
but I appreciate Wikipedia editors like you.
Cynwolfe (
talk)
Time (1810) by Pieter Christoffel Wonder
Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
P Aculeius,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 18:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
If you do not revert this edit [3], I will report you to WP:ANI. One thing is disputing the content of an article and another is disregarding other editors' concerns, specially knowing that the topic has been controverisal in the past. I've started a discussion in the talk page but I will not continue participating unless you undo your edit. I highly recommend you to do so because you've broken the three-revert rule. I have too if this is interpreted as a revert [4] (I don't think it is), but I don't mind if I get blocked too. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 23:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
You are removing innocuous editions by crudely calling them vandalism.
There is no vandalism or anything negative in adding that "the origin of the Ulpia gens is Umbria", instead of saying that "the Ulpii come from Umbria", which is quite generic and even misleading.
Your recent interactions with other users show that you use inflammatory language. Whatever you have against Spain, keep it for your personal sphere, not here.
I warn you that you are about to violate the 3RR. 46.222.234.189 ( talk) 17:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
User:P Aculeius, this guy who warned you and vandalised the Ulpia gens page is a well-known gaslighting user and sock-puppetter who systematically accuses others of doing what he is doing. He violated basically every rule of wikipedia. Vandalism, NPOV, peacock, socks, insults to other users, everything. He is a Spanish suprematist obsessed with genetics and with the idea of that any mention of other countries has to disappear if there's Spain involved (basically wanted to turn wikipedia into his pravda). He has had a vast network of socks and IPs to poison wikipedia with his agenda. Whoever goes against him has been accused by him of being an Italian, British, Portuguese, Islamic nationalist etc etc. See User:JamesOredan and User:Venezia Friulano. Just to inform you. Barjimoa ( talk) 11:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Publius. I’ve noticed that some time ago you took to task to drastically reduce the list editio princeps by creating three new lists ( list of editiones principes in Latin list of editiones principes in Greek, etc.), since the original one had become rather cumbersone. I would like to hear your opinion concerning some work on the articles that I have in mind: I was thinking of splitting the Greek and Latin lists by creating one for “Medieval Latin” and the other for “Byzantine Greek” (600-1450 for both).
I also wanted to know your thoughts concerning the removal of the list that is found at editio princeps; I’ve noticed that you put it there, but I have strong doubts concerning its utility and find it, I’m afraid, pleonastic as it repeats information from the other lists and also marred by POV (unavoidably, since, just to make an example, in a selection how to explain exclusions like Procopius, Euclid, Plotinus and inclusions like Stephanus of Byzantium and Zonaras?). From what I get from the article’s talk, you weren’t totally sure about the list’s need and anyways you meant it shorter than it currently is.
I’ll be very grateful for any advice you can give me and sorry if this message came rather wordy. Aldux ( talk) 03:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hubert Klyne Headley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Langley, British Columbia.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @ P Aculeius. Thank you for your cleanup in the opening section of Pan (god). Since I try only to make edits I can justify, I wanted to say a little more about my revert that started the process.
First, I am wary of deriving information about one topic from a source about another. The scholars compiling that book about pastoral drama presumably researched Greco-Roman mythology, but it is not necessarily their area of expertise. There is a danger of the information being truncated or distorted in the process of their taking it from its original context. My concern was amplified because the addition in question was made by an editor with a history of citing books tangentially related to the article being edited.
Second, unhappy experience has taught me never to trust secondhand renderings of Roman mythology. Historically the topic has been treated in a careless and disrespectful manner, and modern non-experts have not shaken off the habit of ignoring nuance. The seemingly uncontroversial statement that Pan was worshipped by the Romans becomes, upon consulting proper sources, a complex business of the native Arcadian god Pan interacting with three or more rustic Roman deities.
Thank you for your time. I have come, not in a spirit of combat, but because this business raised points that seemed worth airing. ManuelKomnenos ( talk) 15:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
wrong, implausible, or patent nonsense, and in this case that translated sound principles into an act of excessive zeal. ManuelKomnenos ( talk) 17:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
the native Arcadian god Pan interacting with three or more rustic Roman deities), and seems (to me) to be true enough and to hardly need a source at all. In any case, I want to support P. Aculeius's view here. When an editor believes content to be both true (enough?) and uncontroversial, but inadequately sourced, then it is better to simply leave things the way they are, rather than deleting it. Of course, best of all (as P Aculeius has done) is to find better sourcing, and (if needed) to rewrite it to include any missing nuances. Regards Paul August ☎ 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
In these two edits you have restored original research to the Franglais article in the form of six example sentences written in a combination of French and English. After I removed the unsourced material, you immediately restored it, claiming WP:BLUESKY, and that they are "patently obvious" and "do not require a citation". That is merely your opinion, in support of several examples which are half in a foreign language; about as far from BLUESKY as you can get. I have already issued a formal WP:CHALLENGE to source these examples, or to leave them out, and quoted our WP:Verifiability policy to you:
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. ... Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.
but in response you immediately reinserted them again.
It is not up to you (or any editor) to create content that is unsourced and add them to a Wikipedia article; in this case, I believe you did not create them, but merely restored content created by some other user, but the effect is the same: by restoring the examples, you take responsibility for them, and if you want to keep them, they must be sourced; there is no alternative. Verifiability policy is clear on this point and the WP:BURDEN is now on you to source them. Please either source them now, or revert your last edit. Failure to do so will land you either at the Edit-warring noticeboard for repeatedly inserting the same material that another editor objects to, or at WP:ANI for refusing to adhere to the requirements of our core policy of WP:Verifiability when a request to do so has been issued. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 22:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)