This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Ichthyovenator, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type ((help me)) on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stylonurina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superfamilies (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) 11:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ichthyovenator, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Prognathodon have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ichthyovenator. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ichthyovenator. I have been looking at your edits and have seen that some pages not cited without that reference you used to make the list of eurypterid have other references. What I wonder is where you find them, I would like to know.

Also, I want to congratulate you for the good editions you do. Good work!. Super Ψ Dro 20:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I have made a lot of edits, so it would help if you could give me some examples of the pages in question. I normally search for relevant terms on Google Scholar (link) which usually leads to some paper of relevancy, but some specific sources were found in other ways. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I had in mind to make an article to Belinuropsis, which is the only valid gender of the list of eurypterids, and Pachygonosaurus, which happens the same, but in ichthyosaur. But do not worry, I'll try to be the one looking for these references. Maybe the link you gave me serves me ;). Super Ψ Dro 21:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

For Belinuropsis there is a short description in the paper I cited in the list (link), good luck with your articles :). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, good luck with your articles too! Super Ψ Dro 14:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anastasius I Dicorus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 09:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd hardly consider them disruptive, but sure I'll stay off similar stuff in the future. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. In general, this Eastern Roman–Byzantine dichotomy is a contentious area, and large-scale changes should be avoided without discussion or consensus. Best regards. Dr. K. 18:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Constans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Constantine II

Gallienus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Valerian

Philip the Arab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Philip II

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the use of 'medieval roman empire' or at least 'eastern roman empire' should be encouraged and the use of 'byzantine' should become obsolete, we are not in the 19th century anymore. But I fairly agree with you, it's quite good to add the official title, Emperor of the Romans.A r m i n i u s (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)A r m i n i u s

I would actually like to continue the counting from the previous roman emperors. The first Emperor labelled as Emperor of the Byzantine Empire, Anastasius I Dicorus, would then be labelled as "89th Emperor of the Roman Empire", with the counting continuing on from him.

I have already ensured that all the Eastern Roman Emperors are numbered as roman emperors but specified to be Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire (just as the Western ones are specified as being Emperors of the Western Roman Empire) until the end of the Western Empire. Zeno (emperor) is the 86th Emperor of the Roman Empire, Basiliscus is the 87th and Romulus Augustulus is the 88th. Since Zeno (at the very least juridically) reunified the Empire into just one imperial court, the use of "Eastern Roman Emperor" and "Eastern Roman Empire" is actually historically inaccurate beyond the year 480, they were simply "Roman Emperors" of the "Roman Empire" at that point.

I do agree that "Byzantine" should become obsolete, but it can not be denied that it is, at the moment, by far the most common way to refer to the Roman Empire during the middle ages.

Since the Byzantine vs Roman naming discussion comes up quite a lot I thought it best to find some form of compromise in how the titles are used in the infoboxes. "Emperor of the Byzantine Empire" was by far the most commonly used one, so I ensured that it was used on all of them for the sake of consistency between the emperors. We can not change it to "Emperor of the Roman Empire" without clear consensus and the consensus is at the moment seemingly opposed to that. I think putting in the formal and official title ("Augustus" for emperors from Anastasius I Dicorus to Phocas, "Emperor of the Romans" for emperors from Heraclius to Staurakios and "Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans" for emperors from Michael I Rangabe to the end of the empire) was a fair enough compromise. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes! I know the term 'eastern roman empire' isn't accurate after 480 and only Roman Empire/emperor, it's just that people here do not like to use the original name at all for the medieval empire and I think the term 'eastern roman' although not the best term, it doesn't deny the Roman-ness of the Empire, contrary to that byzantine invention. Lets hope we can change it completely to Roman Empire/Emperors someday. Total support dude.A r m i n i u s (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)A r m i n i u s

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Western Roman Empire you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jaekelopterus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Jaekelopterus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jaekelopterus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Byzantine Empire under the Isaurian dynasty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Solidus

Byzantine Empire under the Nikephorian dynasty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Solidus

Twenty Years' Anarchy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Solidus

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Megarachne you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Megarachne you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Megarachne for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Western Roman Empire you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Western Roman Empire for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pterygotidae you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Pterygotidae you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pterygotidae for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulations on the approval of Pterygotidae! There are already 3 good articles about eurypterids! Super Ψ Dro 14:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Acutiramus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ciurcopterus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The article Acutiramus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Acutiramus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The article Ciurcopterus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ciurcopterus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Ichthyovenator. I have noticed that Salteropterus contains a lot of information that does not appear in the abstract of those journals. Do you have the full text? How? I would need it to expand Herefordopterus. Thanks in advance. Super Ψ Dro 16:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, much of the information was based on the full text of some of the journals. I have access to JSTOR, which has quite a few papers (such as this one, which might be relevant for you), for free through my school. Not sure how you would go about getting access, but I know that there is some sort of collaboration between JSTOR and Wikipedia that might help (link), depending on if you are at some kind of institution, some institutions have JSTOR access (link). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I already requested access to JSTOR. Super Ψ Dro 22:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Slimonia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Slimonia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Slimonia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Salteropterus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The article Salteropterus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Salteropterus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

	The Fossilized Barnstar
	For your explosion of expanded eurypterid articles in so little time! They will probably be the best (only?) sources of information about these animals for regular readers anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Very much appreciated :) I will do my best to keep it up!

The article Mauro-Roman Kingdom you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mauro-Roman Kingdom for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pterygotus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi once more, Ichthyovenator. I plan on doing several restorations of the body parts of some eurypterids, but I do not know how. I would like to ask you how you do it and what tools you use. Thanks in advance. Super Ψ Dro 21:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late response. When I restore eurypterids I look for images of the most well preserved specimens available and make a pencil drawing based on that (and often based on other restorations to get a feel as to how they would have looked). I then take a photo of the drawing and edit it on my computer, doing stuff like increasing the contrast and editing how it looks to make the end result a quite clean line drawing. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And what do you use to edit the images? That is what is most difficult for me. Super Ψ Dro 15:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

MS Paint and Gimp (link), any decent image editing app could really replace Gimp here, Pixlr is easily accessible online for instance (link). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I was looking for anything to do a test restoration and I made the holotype of Dolichopterus gotlandicus (link). How about? Feel free to modify whatever, especially those points that look so ugly. Super Ψ Dro 18:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good. Do you have a link to the source/reference used so that I can compare them to the final result? Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this one, page 128. Super Ψ Dro 08:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Since I'm myself spread a bit thin on Wikipedia at present, and since you both have eurypterid articles up, I was wondering if you should maybe try to review one of each other's current nominations? After all, you two are probably the most knowledgeable on the group, and it will also help practice your reviewer skills. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, I could get a review started on Parahughmilleria. @Super Dromaeosaurus: are there other eurypterid GA nominations by you that I've missed? My only nominated one at the moment is Adelophthalmus.

And Pterygotus! FunkMonk (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Yeah that one too, forgot :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not see myself yet able to do a review. Maybe in the future, make one, and short. I have noticed some articles like this this one could help me to start. At the moment there is no other article that I have nominated. And speaking of GA, I think it would not be bad to also nominate Slimonidae to become the first good topic of eurypterids, I see it as complete enough, only lacking paleoecology. Super Ψ Dro 20:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I would gladly help oversee such a review, it really isn't that hard. Just keep in mind what you have been told in reviews of your nominations, skim the GA criteria, and then I'll point you in the right direction if something is missing. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

On the topic of a good topic I think Slimonidae is a little too small of a topic (3 articles, not that good topics have to be large). If we were to attempt a good topic I think Pterygotioidea superfamily would be a good one to do. It includes the famous pterygotids (all except Necrogammarus are GA or GA-nominated), the hughmillerids (Herefordopterus needing work here) and the slimonids (both GA). The articles that would be in need of expansion are not that many. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, the number of articles does not matter, even if they are only three. Probably Pterygotioidea can never become a good topic because of Necrogammarus, only a redescription could give enough information for GA, and it does not seem like that will happen soon. I am working on Herefordopterus and will soon be moving to Hughmilleriidae, so there is no problem with that. Super Ψ Dro 20:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that Raphinae became a featured topic, even though it only contains two genera, so should be possible. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Necrogammarus does make Pterygotioidea as a Good topic problematic, yes. I have been meaning to edit the Slimonidae article itself for a while so we can see what to do after that. I do not believe a GA necessarily has to be very long (correct me if I'm wrong), just comprehensive and featuring everything we know about the subject at hand. Necrogammarus is almost certainly synonymous with either Erettopterus or Pterygotus but I think it is possible to expand its article a little bit more at least. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Well... things like Schinderhannes bartelsi are very short and they are GA, so it does not need to be large. In fact, Necrogammarus almost has the same number of bytes as Schinderhannes bartelsi. But everything has a limit, and a minimum is needed to be a GA. Wyomingopteryx is a nomen nudum and this is practically everything known about it. But a GA of it will never happen. I am exaggerating in this case, but I do not think that an article with the current information that Necrogammarus has can pass. It would probably take at least a brief description and some sentences about paleoecology. The latter is easy, as we have been doing in some articles, you can add its fossil site and faunas found in the same place. I did not think Hughmilleria would pass with such a short paleoecology, but it did it, so it is possible. A GA of Necrogammarus would be quite an achievement that would open the possibility that Waeringopteridae would also be GA, so it is worth trying. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It also comes down to the reviewers, and some reviewers simply don't know anything about the subjects they review. For example, I would not have passed Schinderhannes without some significant expansion, I really don't believe it is as comprehensive it can be in regard to the literature. A standalone section called "significance" is also highly unorthodox, and would probably not be accepted in articles in general, regardless of topic. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adelophthalmus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Slimonidae you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Slimonidae you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Slimonidae for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Adelophthalmus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adelophthalmus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Pterygotus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pterygotus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

	The Fossilized Barnstar
	I might be more of a dinosaur guy but I must say your work on pterygotid articles is very impressive. If you continue to work on Necrogammarus and end up nominating it for GA as well, Pterygotidae could become a good topic! So I give you this fossilized barnstar, and bid you good luck on your editing! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! Necrogammarus is going to be difficult to do anything major with as it is basically undiagnostic (for a dinosaur comparison, think something like Deinodon but with less history and material behind it) but I will see what can be done with it :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ichthyovenator,

Do you think it would be worthwhile to open a discussion on John at the GAN discussion page? It seems his style of asking for unspecified changes and closing when they weren't met was also found at Talk:Jared Kushner/GA1, and probably other places. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I did find the review very odd and completely unlike ones I have been through before, especially the quick close of the review. Not sure if it anything would come from it but I think it could be worthwile to open a discussion, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Necrogammarus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Super Dromaeosaurus -- Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eusarcana you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The article Eusarcana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eusarcana for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pterygotioidea you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The article Necrogammarus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Necrogammarus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Super Dromaeosaurus -- Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The article Pterygotioidea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pterygotioidea for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carcinosoma you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The article Carcinosoma you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Carcinosoma for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mauro-Roman Kingdom you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to congratulate and thank you for your work concerning the very little recognized Berber-Roman kingdoms of the post and pre-vandal periods, and to revive this very vague period, I appreciate your work. I am a from France, of Berber origin, my maternal family is from the province of Tiaret, with members of our family in the whole sector, in Tiaret (the main city of the region), Frenda, etc, in the area where these kingdoms have emerged!), and my father from Bejaia, so these contributions affect me a lot, because it's part of the story of my ancestors. Hope you will appreciate this message. Sorry for my very bad english, my native language is French. Also, one more edit, i wanted to inform you that I am currently translating your excellent article on the kingdom of Moors and Romans ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:L%27Homme_Presse/Brouillon ). An ode of compliments for a contributor doing an excellent job in anonymity, and with a lot of humility. Goodbye. L'Homme Presse (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! It was odd to me that a line of kings claiming such a grand title as the "Kings of the Moors and Romans" had been overlooked so I did my best to write about them and their kingdom as comprehensively as I could. It was very interesting to learn more about the Mauro-Roman Kingdom and the other Berber kingdoms that emerged in North Africa after the collapse of Rome when researching for the article, hopefully it does a good job at representing the history of the region. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurypterid you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The article Eurypterid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurypterid for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ichthyovenator. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		It gives me great pleasure to award you this hard earned barnstar for your amazing work on Western Roman Empire and for bringing it up to Good Article status. A lot of work and a lot of perseverance. You are a fine example of Wikipedia at its best. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! Feels like forever since I began working on that article, here's to many more articles to come :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ichthyovenator. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Jaekelopterus at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Tdslk (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Eurypterid has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the FA review.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to go through the article! Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Eurypterid Award
		For your impressive rap sheet with eurypterids, including a good topic with 14 articles which you managed to do in just the last year, an award I just made up right now. Keep paddling on   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks and nice award! I'll keep paddling on for sure! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

For your new Assyrian article. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hah! Thank you! Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding ottoman empire Harry Potter LXXIII (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I only edited the article on Byzantine Empire because it has a labe caling for shortening and restructuring. I did some mistakes but I would like to help satisfy the label's instructions. COuld I ind help from someone on that effort?--Soccererer (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize if I in any way discouraged you from editing with my reverts of your contributions to the article. The major thing to consider with the Byzantine Empire article is that not only is it a featured article but it also has an average of almost 6,000 viewers each day (source). It's a quite important article and I do believe major restructurings and rephrasings should be discussed on the talk page of the article before being implemented. You did shorten it, yes, but there was also a lot of information lost (and I'm not sure how the lost information was less important than the kept information) and the exposition became a bit muddled in my opinion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding ottoman empire in Rome William MMXCVIII (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article King of the Universe you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BMO4744 -- BMO4744 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The article King of the Universe you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:King of the Universe for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BMO4744 -- BMO4744 (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think from here I should just scratch the review and delete it all. Then you can get someone else and their may be no confusionBMO4744 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@BMO4744: As long as that is okay with you, sure. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

For safe keeping Talk:King of the Universe/GA1. BMO4744 (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The article King of the Universe you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:King of the Universe for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of T8612 -- T8612 (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Kingdom of the Aures.

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

An interesting article. I have nominated it for DYK.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Cwmhiraeth)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The article King of the Four Corners you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:King of the Four Corners for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating King of the Lands.

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

Most of the content in the lead should be moved to new sections in the body of the article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Rosguill)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your well-written Mesopotamian-related articles. Keep it up! HistoryofIran (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you! Hoping to get fully back into it in the coming months :)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Western Roman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honorius (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) 10:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Kingdom of the Aures 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! MX (✉ • ✎) 15:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

On 28 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kingdom of the Aurès, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite previously being at war with the Kingdom of the Aurès, the Byzantine Empire supported them during the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Campylocephalus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Super Dromaeosaurus -- Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The article Campylocephalus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Campylocephalus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Super Dromaeosaurus -- Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vernonopterus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Super Dromaeosaurus -- Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The article Vernonopterus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vernonopterus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Super Dromaeosaurus -- Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article King of Kings you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article King of Sumer and Akkad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The article King of Sumer and Akkad you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:King of Sumer and Akkad for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The article King of Kings you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:King of Kings for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The article King of Sumer and Akkad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:King of Sumer and Akkad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article After Man you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The article After Man you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:After Man for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The New Dinosaurs you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The article The New Dinosaurs you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The New Dinosaurs for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Akkadian royal titulary you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Akkadian royal titulary you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Akkadian royal titulary for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Man After Man you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Man After Man you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Man After Man for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Man After Man you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Man After Man for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Jaekelopterus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 26, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 26, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Exciting stuff! I'll be eagerly checking through everything up until October 26th! Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Mesopotamian royal titles.

User:Originalmess while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Just wondering - what about Sumerian royal titles?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Originalmess)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 06:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Originalmess: Since writing appeared in Mesopotamia ~3500 BC and the "Akkadian period" (as in civilizations using the Akkadian language etc.) begins in ~2300 BC and then more or less lasts throughout the rest of Ancient Mesopotamian history, most Mesopotamian royal titles we have written down will be in the Akkadian language and inspired by those created during the Akkadian and Neo-Sumerian empires. There just aren't as many Sumerian titles preserved as there are Akkadian ones and anything in Sumerian beyond the start of the Akkadian period is usually just translations of the Akkadian titles.

There are of course some earlier examples and some later sources giving title for historical kings and such but it is also worth noting that earlier Sumerian titles weren't as elaborate as those of the Akkadians, ususally just combining one of the titles for "king" (lugal, ensi, en etc.) with the city that they ruled. I figured that since Akkadian titles cover most of what we consider to be Ancient Mesopotamian history and are both more common and more elaborate than previous Sumerian ones, "Mesopotamian royal titles" would be fine as a redirect to "Akkadian royal titulature", though that might change if someone puts together a "Sumerian royal titulary" article at some point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks so much! I'll leave a note on the redirect page too. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 22:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hibbertopterus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Hibbertopterus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hibbertopterus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Just want to once again express my thanks for articles like Ferdinand Palaiologos and Theodore Palaiologos (16th century). They are interesting little gems and a perfect example of the type of content that you really have trouble finding outside Wikipedia because it is scattered here and there and often inaccessible. Well done. Do you intend to work on other Palaiologoi? Constantine ✍ 21:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The pleasure's all mine! I read about Ferdinand and Theodore some time ago and while there is uncertainty in regards to their claims, there is a real possibility that they were Manuel II's actual descendants. Learning of the somewhat shady Theodore and how Ferdinand avoided fighting in the English Civil War and ended up retiring on Barbados you sort of want their claims of imperial descent to be true. It's just such an unexpected fate for the final imperial dynasty. My main focus this time around were on these two and I think, sadly, that sources are too scarce to write decent articles on their close relatives (such as Theodore's other sons who died in the war, his grandfather Prosperos and Ferdinand's son and grandchildren).

I do enjoy reading up on the Palaiologoi though so I might end up tackling some obscurer medieval figures in the family, or some of those with certain imperial descent (Thomas/Andreas), if I uncover something interesting. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Theodore II Palaiologos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Despot and Theodore Palaiologos

Demetrios Palaiologos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Despot

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Ichthyovenator. I know this seems somewhat meddlesome on my part but I see that lately your contributions have focused on the Palaiologos family. I'm not really a fan of Byzantine history but I find it certainly interesting. That's why I was wondering if you have heard of the Romanian Paleologu family. From what I've heard, they come from the island of Lesbos and settled in Wallachia at some point in history. Their connection with the Palaiologoi is not entirely safe but I think it's something very interesting and maybe you know something about them and their doubtful connection, it would be pretty cool if they actually descended from them. I also want to congratulate you on the articles you have been expanding, they are very interesting! Good job! Super Ψ Dro 10:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! I learnt of Ferdinand Palaiologos randomly just a few days ago and through him of his father Theodore and their stories seemed so strange to me that you almost want their claims of also being the heirs of the emperors to be true. I think their genealogy shows pretty well that even in cases where they are relatively near in time (Theodore's birth in around 1560 is just a little over a century after Constantinople's fall) having the last name "Palaiologos" isn't a guarantee for being a relative of the emperors; even though Theodore's lineage really only has one uncertain link ("John", supposed son of Thomas), a lot of historians disregard him and his descendants today.

I had not heard of the Romanian Paleologu family! Even in medieval times, the Palaiologos family was large and the imperial line (descendants of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos) was just one of many branches descended from the family's 11th-century founder, the general Nikephoros Palaiologos. There are a fair amount of people in modern Greece and Italy with some version of "Palaiologos" as their last name and it is possible that a fair number of them are "true" Palaiologoi as in descendants of old Nikephoros but not necessarily descendants of the emperors. This might apply to the Romanian Paleologu as well (or it's possible that they just made it up, though the connection with Lesbos in Greece certainly helps) but it is certainly interesting and I will definitely look into it and see what I can find! Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)