I do believe that this, being a formal sanction with community consensus, needs to be logged at WP:Editing restrictions; or am I missing something? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was told it was, Vanamonde93. Procedures change almost every year, so I'm honestly not certain. Best to overdo it than miss a step. -- llywrch (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, FWIW I am quite certain. I'd have gone ahead and done it, too, but I didn't want to tread on your toes, and I think it looks better when the closing admin logs the sanction...Vanamonde (Talk) 03:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. I misunderstood you; I thought you said it did not need to be logged. I did log it there. Or did I do it wrong? I added it to his talk page to ensure he was aware of what happened; as I wrote, best to overdo it. --llywrch (talk)

Ooh. My bad. I looked at your contributions before you logged it, and then was looking at a cached page where the transclusion had not updated. Apologies, and thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. We're both just trying to do our best for the encyclopedia. -- llywrch (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch, I've discovered either a possible copyright violation or a page sourced to a Wikipedia mirror at Saint Claudia (identical to this site). I was wondering what to do. I posted about it (and the fact that article is abysmal) at the Christianity noticeboard yesterday but no response so far.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, @Ermenrich: that is an untidy little article. IMHO, while it is clear that it is drawn from the Catholic Online article, ours is clearly a paraphrase & not a copyvio. A bad paraphrase, & in need of some copy editing. (At least the equivalent article at the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia provides some references.) I would rewrite it, & provide a few more sources. If you still think it's a copyright violation, post something over at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- llywrch (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, do you think there should be an article for Cider Riot or Cider Riot brawl (or similar? Cider Riot incident?) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, At the moment I think we ought to wait & see how this develops. It could become a very notable incident & Gibson could end up doing serious time, or it might fizzle out into nothing if a judge decides to throw out the case. (Personally, I hope the judge throws the book at Gibson. He deserves it.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, Gibson is a troll... Thanks for your reply. ---Another Believer _(Talk) --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's not nice to make fun of people's appearances. ;-) llywrch (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Unfortunately, his good looks are wasted. Also, I couldn't help myself... between company history, awards, reviews, and the brawl, I think there's something here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I added a link to that article since "cidery" isn't a familiar word. Until now, I'd guess it is like a brew pub but instead of beer/ale it produces cider, but the relevant articles suggest something different. If it's not too much trouble, Another Believer, could you do some in-person research & determine which article best defines it. (And feel free to have a glass for me.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've got this place on my 'to do' list, but might be a while because I don't live in the immediate vicinity. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know if you still edit Ehtiopian topics but User:Shevonsilva, some of those Ethiopian sub stubs look a right stink in comparison to your lovely woreda articles. Can you sort them out or delete them if needs me? Hope you're well!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, my good evil Doctor. If you are well, I am well. Glad to hear from you.

I took a look at a couple of articles our fellow editor created, & while I haven't done more than correct the occasional typo or fix a link with those articles over the last 10 years, the fellow has definitely (as we say on this side of the Atlantic) tried to implant the dog with offspring. One of the reasons I gave up working on Ethiopian geographical articles was that although I had finally made some sense out of the local administrative subdivisions (known as woredas), the Ethiopian government decided to reorganize a number of them. And with my resources limited to what I can find on the Internet -- I have no inside contact with anyone there -- I was unable to provide more than a few updates & corrections before giving up in frustration. Add to this the only people who have a clue about the local boundaries are the Ethiopians (1) who often have a conflict of interest in providing information, & (2) whose English is often substandard, & the result is the growing mess we now have. (It appears the Somali Region is the worst.)

Something needs to be done to clean all of this up. I really wasn't planning to work on these articles -- I've devoted what spare time my daughters allow me to gathering together information on the Tao Te Ching, which is also in sad shape -- but I might have to be the one to do it. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah it can get really tricky when they create new areas and change the boundaries. It really messes everything up! Thanks for all the work you did on them anyway! Your articles are always welcome on the challenge pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge etc! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch! I'm trying to move Das Eckenlied to Eckenlied (with redirect) because the German definite article shouldn't really be part of the name, as another user pointed out long ago. For some reason it won't let me do it. It's a completely non-controversial move, I made the page last year and just sort of unthinkingly included the article. Would you mind using your admin powers to help me?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ermenrich, done! -- llywrch (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is spam, forgive me. I'm gonna go through various GAR pages and look for people who appear active. All I'm asking for is a review, not asking for any specific outcome (i.e., not begging for a KEEP). The GAR is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bengal famine of 1943/1. If you review and Delist, that's OK, so long as it gets a meaningful review...

The article is big, detailed and has a terrible history in various Content Review forums. In fact, it has been residing in Content Review Hell for a couple years now... In return for a review (not a specific outcome) I'll do any kinda gnomish or research work you wish. Forex, I love converting inconsistent referencing into (({sfn))}, regardless of article size. I also help with all the errors that show up as described User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. And so on. Thank you for reading this; forgive the intrusion. Cheers ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I don't drop by here more often. I do love your sense of humor. And yes, I enjoy the history lessons too. When I first started (all those many moons ago), the honorable Bishonen, Iri, and several others would often point me in the direction of a particular back-story I should know. I think one of the first "lessons" I read was the whole User:Essjay situation. Shortly after that some of the Giano and some FT2 history as well. I read because I HATE sounding like an idiot (although I do it so well). Anyway - I do appreciate your time, replies, and humor - Best always, — Ched (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks! :-) llywrch (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thanks for your participation in the September 2019 GA Backlog drive. Your 6 reviews made a difference, as did your willingness to review particularly old nominations. The work of editors like you helped bring down the unreviewed backlog by over 35%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Llywrch. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! PATH SLOPU 03:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 17 years. Some better than other years. -- llywrch (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okey I found some pages with Errors in the Numbers so I Did the Math and fixed them. Alejxon (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch

I hope that things are going well with you. You may have noticed that someone with a grudge against you has posted a blank page purporting to be from you on the ArbComm elections nominations page.

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Gog the Mild, it's just me testing the Wiki & finding bugs. -- llywrch (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Fair nuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Llywrch, there appears to be some technical issues with your WP:ACE2019 self nomination. Did you follow direction (v) on Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates for creating your statements? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: -- Yes, at least I thought I did. But knowing my knack at finding bugs in computer software I appear to have found something wrong. -- llywrch (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to fix it for you. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed it. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man fixed it for you, looks like you are good now. Best wishes, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I can't help but find bugs no matter what I do. :-( llywrch (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

places in Ethiopia, Roman senators, and butting in

Thank you for hundreds of quality articles about Roman senators such as Avitus, hundreds of places such as Mojo, Ethiopia, historians such as William Miller (historian), news such as 1960 Ethiopian coup d'état attempt, for GA reviewing, in service from 2002, for butting in now, - Geoff, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2308 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Always wondered if I'd get one of these. Thanks! -- llywrch (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:) Adding my +1. And most glad to see you taking an interest in arbitration as well, however windmill-filled it may be. – SJ + 19:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC) And: taking care of the daughters!! Doubly precious. Thank you for continuing to share presence here. – SJ + 18:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch, thanks for your answers to my questions; they're really inspiring! I especially liked this bit This diverts money that could have gone to nurture & further improve Wikipedia, used for activities such as providing training for volunteers in copyright law, defamatory speech, research skills, or even fund access to information.. The idea of using WMF funds to provide training to help editors specialize in topics like copyright and research is great and is something I would like to see flourish. It's not particularly relevant to ACE, so I'm bringing it up here, but have you ever thought about ways to bring that about? Wug·a·po·des​ 19:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wugapodes! I've tried to advocate for providing some form of benefits for Wikipedia/Wikimedia volunteers for a long time, but I've not been successful. Part of the reason is that I was unable to find how to present the idea to the Foundation in a way that they had to give it some kind of consideration. (The WMF is set up so that the employees can ignore us if they choose. They frequently establish the rules of engagement, & routinely deflect any comments they feel are "irrelevant." While this allows them to get work done without having to deal with every gadfly & troll with lame ideas, it also avoids any responsibility to the communities.) Part of the reason is that the heads of the Foundation (call them Educational Director or CEO) have failed to understand the needs of the communities. Sue Gardner was hostile to the very idea volunteers receive any form of financial aid from the Foundation; Lila Tretikov thought the MWF was solely a software non-profit; & Katherine Maher appears to be too busy travelling & meeting people to bother doing more than occasionally thinking about the volunteers, let alone ponder if we need anything. (I haven't yet gotten a feel for Ryan Merkley, the new COO. Beyond the fact he is surprisingly silent about what he wants to do as COO, let alone what he's done. In my experience, C-level types are always promoting themselves.) And part of the reason is that I'm just not very effective at agitating for a cause. So I've let this matter drop & focused on what I can accomplish.

And you're right that the ArbCom is not the medium to try to get any of these ideas implemented. That was never my intent. What I intend to do on the ArbCom is to show the Foundation that we can manage our affairs far better than they can, thus undercutting any attempt by the WMF to manage them for us. Obviously if they do take over managing disputes this will justify existing jobs, furnish a case to hire more Foundation employees, as well as make a case that the Foundation needs more money. However, if they are frustrated at attempting to assume these duties, maybe they will consider the services we've mentioned. I'm not seriously expecting that to happen, but given enough prods even the slowest & least intelligent animal will begin to move in the direction one wants. -- llywrch (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a shame. Hopefully the idea gains some traction---I'll keep an eye out for opportunities. It seems editors have gotten their foot in the door through the Wikipedia Library which gives editors free access to paid databases. It would be nice to see that expanded. Maybe some kind of user group---like Art+Feminism---that would organize workshops for editors on copyright law or help coordinate access to sources. If you get on ArbCom you probably won't have a ton of time, but if you ever need a set of hands to help get these ideas off the ground, let me know! (Also, I didn't think your answer implied you thought ArbCom would be a venue to pursue this. I thought it was a very good answer that showed a dedication to the movement and community organization that would be a great perspective on ArbCom.) Wug·a·po·des​ 22:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your second answer was one of the best things I've ever read about Wikipedia. I think that should go straight into an essay, with shortcuts like WP:ONLYINPRACTICE, WP:NOTINTHEORY, or WP:WHATSTHETHEORY. – Levivich 07:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Levivich. It's something that I've thought about for a long while, & I owe Wugapodes big time for the opportunity to put it in writing! -- llywrch (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would make a fine ArbCom member, you have my support. Paul August ☎ 13:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks Paul! -- llywrch (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just a note: after your closing of the RfC here: Talk:Jabel_Mukaber#External_links last year, some editors now disagree about using it as a source in the articles. The discussion is at Talk:Gilo#Removal_of_ARIJ_sources, regarding edits like this. If you want to clarify your close? Huldra (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to note that the edit that the above user has linked to did not remove those ARIJ sources from the article. The misleading nature of her comment above is permeates her Wikipedia editing. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people who disappeared mysteriously: pre-1970, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Overton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Llywrch. After spending a little time separating republican augurs from imperial, I did a little curative work on the main Gurges article (the reason that there are two, if you don't recall, is that there's a scholarly dispute over whether the one who perished during his consulship in 265 BC was the one who had been consul twice previously, and whether either of them was the father of Verrucosus). Since they may have been the same person, I was about to add Category:augurs of the Roman Republic to the other article, but I noticed that it didn't mention him being an augur. I then looked at the one you were working with this morning, and the only thing about an augurship there pertained to Verrucosus having been appointed an augur in 265, the year of Gurges' death. So I'm wondering: is his augurship found in Broughton or one of the Roman historians, and simply not mentioned in his article; or is it an error due to the word being mentioned in the article in connection with his son? P Aculeius (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, P Aculeius. What I've been doing is adding Category:Augurs of the Roman Republic to the bios where the article explicitly states the person was an Augur. I'll admit that I was sloppy in a few places -- & it appears I was sloppy with the article on the consul of 265 BC -- but I looked into the matter no further than that. (From other indications, I suspect there are many more augurs out there, both Republican & Imperial. Probably need to do a word search on the inscriptions database to be sure.) So in the case of Gurges, I honestly don't know. My own opinion would be to go with what Broughton states, unless some subsequent archeological discovery proved otherwise. (And you have a copy of that book, unfortunately I don't.)

PS -- At a few points I encountered the old problem of where to draw the line between "Republican augurs" & "Imperial augurs". For example, what I did in the case of Lucius Sempronius Atratinus was to harmonize that cat with what his navbox said. I won't argue that this was the best solution, & won't revert if you disagree & change it back, but if you do, try to keep the relevant parts harmonized. I expect this point -- where to draw the line between the Republic & Empire for the various categories -- will need to be discussed by the Workgroup & arbitrarily set. (FWIW, I don't see this as an original research issue, just an administrative one. And even if we set a dividing line, because peoples' lives straddle that line we'll be forced to make case-by-case exceptions.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can check Broughton. I only have volume I physically, but I found a PDF (not a terribly good one) of most of volume II... missing the end of the last year and all of what I believe is a substantial appendix—if I can find a good copy at an affordable price, I'll try to get one—and a PDF of volume III (apparently the same as the supplement). I think that in the case of people whose lives straddle the division between the Republic and the Empire, we should list them under both categories, where both apply. In the case of Atratinus, he became an augur under the Republic and presumably continued to be one in imperial times, so he should be included in both categories. However, he was only consul prior to the Battle of Actium and the granting of the title "Augustus" in 27 BC, so I think he would probably be considered a Republican consul. I'll have a look and see what adjustments I think should be made. Thanks for the prompt reply about Gurges; I'll check on that in Broughton. P Aculeius (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @P Aculeius:, I've checked in Jörg Rüpke's Fasti Sacerdotum (which is the reference work for Roman priests) and there is nothing for Gurges, so it's safe to remove the cat. Regarding Broughton, here is the pdf of volume II (with searchable text). The short 1960 supplement is available here. Broughton published a long supplement (called volume 3) in 1986, but unavailable at a decent price. T8612 (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, T8612. That's quite a quality improvement in the pdf, not to mention a much smaller file size than the 37 MB scan I found! Although some of the typographic features in the original are helpful, such as small caps for names and small print for the notes—still, I'm astonished somebody retyped it all as a PDF! Unfortunately, while it completes 31 BC, it still is missing all those lovely appendices! I'm just going to have to buy a hard copy one of these days when I find one at a price that doesn't seem extravagant. I think I already have the 1960 supplement; wasn't sure volume III was substantially different, since on used book seller sites the descriptions are hard to compare, and last I looked I was pretty sure they were close to the same. As for Gurges, I already deleted the category based on Broughton. I figured, if I was wrong, somebody with better access to good sources could always correct me! P Aculeius (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a pleasant surprise to find the exact information you need on the Internet. (Far too often, it's either a spammy site or embarrassingly out of date information. -- llywrch (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST. You can join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://virginia.zoom.us/my/wikilgbt. The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102) 47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W / 47.622928; -122.322912 The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marcus Plautius Silvanus (praetor 24), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annales (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

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

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Roman governors of Bithynia and Pontus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaius Marcius Censorinus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this his participation in this thread dealing with a passage in Tacitus's annals discussing Jesus's execution by Pontius Pilate constitute a violation of Paul Siebert's tban from Pontius Pilate broadly construed? If so, would you mind issuing a warning?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'll look into this, Ermenrich. Thanks for the info. -- llywrch (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, since Pontius Pilate is a topic that is not in a focus of my interest, I didn't pay must attention to the topic ban. However, now I am seeing that some people are trying to use this topic ban as a tool to win a content dispute in the area that is only remotely related to that topic. I find that unacceptable and, frankly, dishonest. In connection to that, I am contemplating a possibility to open the AN discussion of that topic ban. Indeed, if you look at this story as a neutral observer, the accusations that were put forward were totally laughable: I was literally accused of conducting long talk page discussions. All other accusations were factually incorrect. I asked peoples who falsely accused me of being incompetent to apologise, and informed them that their behaviour poses a serious danger to Wikipedia, so I am going to draw attention of ArbCom to that incident (which was probably not wise, but it is not prohibited by our rules), and that was the only reason why you banned me. I think that you had no right to do so, and I am going bring that issue to AN. However, I would prefer to discuss it with you first, because I still hope that we can resolve this issue ourselves without wasting other people's time. In connection to that, can you please explain me if you still honestly believe your action was correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take whatever action you wish. -- llywrch (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)To make your life easier, let be remind you that the topic ban wording was "banned from Pontius Pilates article (and some related articles)". That was not a Pilates topic, so mentioning of Pilates name in a context of other articles is not a violation. In that sense, the context of that complain is interesting: the person who made the complain was asked to provide concrete counter-arguments, and instead of that, he decided to report me under a totally formal pretext. I don't think encouraging this type behaviour is in interests of the project as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will state that I am planning to find a reliable source that does address your extreme skepticism -- although I would assume that the expert opinions of textual editors such as Henry Furneaux (who is cited in the article under discussion) would be sufficient to show you should not be so confident in your skepticism. However, I have other demands on my time at the moment, so I cannot properly respond to your comments here; again, you are free to continue the discussion at the talk page, or open a discussion at WP:AN/I about the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, additional sources will not resolve this content dispute, because the dispute is about some concrete article: we have different opinia on what this concrete author says. I present arguments and quotes demonstrating that the author does not see any historical value in the authentic Tacitus passage, another user says that the author confirms both authenticity and historical value. This other user provides no arguments except a complaint that I allegedly violated conditions of your ridiculous topic ban. The very fact that that user had chosen this shaky way is a demonstration of weakness of their position.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to bring the ban issue to AN/I, I plan to discuss it at AN.. I want admins to check if the pretext of that ban was correct. However, I am reluctant to do so, for I think we would save a lot of time of many busy people is we managed to resolve this issue by yourselves.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Legio VII Claudia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lucius Vipstanus Messalla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the "community referral to Arbcom" option myself, but it didn't get enough support :-) Nice dissection of a potentially nasty RFC - David Gerard (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened to belatedly run across that close via the Admin newsletter today and thought I'd echo the positive thoughts. It was a very good breakdown of an RfC that ultimately reached very little consensus, your closing statement was an excellent summary. Any closing statement that ends with "Still, the hope persists." has to be disappointing on some level, but there was no other way! ~ mazca ^talk 20:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mazca, IMHO one chief issue is that there is no simple way for a community process that slips between all the hazards: here be the rock of giving troublemakers a chance at vengeance, there the whirlpool of letting some unfairly get away with bad practices because they have influence, & further along are the shoals that any sanction to a Wikipedian who is acting in good faith -- whether or not an Admin -- is likely to lead to that person leaving the project. (For example, I contemplated a possible process where after 100 established Wikipedians sign a petition that admin loses the bit. Despite the fact a petition like this would indicate deep-seated discontent, it wouldn't work. Consider this: if 100 established Wikipedians signed a petition to take the bit from me, I'd very likely quit Wikipedia entirely due to the widespread dissatisfaction with my actions. Having even 20 of my peers announce in public they lost all confidence in me would be very demoralizing. And knowing that this could happen keeps me from making hasty or ill-considered decisions.) --llywrch (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am trying to create a forum where various WIkiProjects can exchange ideas and information about their best ideas, efforts, methods, and accomplishments. I am the Lead Coordinator at WikiProject History. I tried to create an active exchange at WikiProject Council, but did not get very far when I tried to do so.

I would like to get some interested editors together who might be interested in helping with this idea, either with getting WikiProject Council moving again, or creating a whole new WikiProject to do so.

You can sign up to help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editors Forum/Members. Right now, this page is a redirect to a draft in my user space; we will move it to the project space as soon as we have ten people signed up.

eventually, the goal would be to have a few people from a wide variety of WikiProjects and varioous topical areas, working together at WIkiProject Council, to help us create a forum and an exchange for ideas and information.

Would you be interested in helping with this? Please let me know. If you wish, you can simply comment on my talk page to let me know any comments or thoughts on this. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch, since you suggested snow-closing the Terms of Use enforcement against Status Labs RFC after three days or 100 comments, would you please do that? Doc James said he'd share it with the Board, and I hope Smallbones has made his sources aware of it (and if so I hope they confirm it's what they meant), but there's clearly no reason to keep asking for more comments at this point. I'm going to take it out of WP:CENT now. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EllenCT left me a note, so I'll chirp in here. A proper closing of this is pretty important. With 98 to 2, it shouldn't be difficult, but perhaps somebody could ask an arbitrator to do it, and since Llywrch voted he might not be the best. There's clearly no reason to keep it open over the weekend when people will be out in the real world having fun, but we might as well keep it open until noonish NY time Friday. Just my 2 cents. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EllenCT I have no problem closing this RfC. However, as Smallbones points out it may appear to the WMF there is a conflict of interest here, that this does not represent the community accurately, & refuse to honor this request. (They may follow their habitual actions, & refuse to even acknowledge they received it.) Best to ask an uninvolved Admin. I did a quick check & noticed that neither Gyrofrog nor & Jmabel are Admins & they did not participate in the discussion. Maybe one of these would be interested in closing this RfC. (Likewise Liz was uninvolved in this.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they aren't going to complain about who closed it. "If the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion," says WP:ANRFC. I just thought you wanted to because you had the clearest idea about when it should be closed. It doesn't matter to me now that it's off WP:CENT and it gets passed along by Smallbones to his sources. EllenCT (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed it, since the consensus is overwhelming, and I can't imagine it changing. Llywrch, you say "neither Gyrofrog nor Jmabel are Admins"; not sure what you meant by that, I'm an admin. - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I didn't give my comment a final look-over, & forgot to change those words before saving. (Have I mentioned that I reserve the right to completely screw up my own edits?) -- llywrch (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thanks for your compassion and out-of-the-box thinking at ANI. Regardless of how it plays out, I'm glad to see creative ways of resolving disputes. Hopefully it inspires more out of the box thinking! — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the ANI thread referenced above is eligible to be auto-archived and it appears that the user in question is on your suggested Wikibreak. Could you please close the thread? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to take care of that this morning, PST. Thanks for the reminder. -- llywrch (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for not seeing this before the thread was closed. I have been busy off-Wiki. Since the thread has already closed, I will go ahead and accept your offer. However, I am currently monitoring a situation at WP:ANI#Incivility help regarding block evasion. We're still waiting for an administrator response there.

Would it be too troublesome for me to file a Request for Closure there? There is a unanimous consensus that block evasion took place, and a unanimous consensus that bludgeoning/long term abuse took place and that the evidence for meat puppetry and IP socking is strong. However, because of the length of the discussion (and perhaps because of my involvement, after I was smeared in the discussion that was just closed), there still hasn't been an administrator response yet.

I'm not currently doing anything else on Wikipedia right now, due to time constraints. After that is closed and resolved, I can go over to User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks and request a 30-day block for the Wikibreak.

However, just so there's no misunderstanding, I still plan on filing a subsequent ANI or ArbCom report at some point after the Wiki-break. I have saved what I was typing in a Microsoft Word document, and I wasn't being disingenuous when I pointed out disruption. However, I can promise you that I will not confront TTN, Eagles247, Reyk, Piotrus, or any of the AfDs on the matter until said report is filed. DarkKnight2149 04:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Hello, sorry for seeking a response from you directly all of the sudden. The IP user 202.168.59.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently reverting edits (having done so 20+ times in the past three hours) on the page Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/South Korea medical cases. The user has not attempted to engage in conversations or explain their reasons. May I request a semi-protection of the page? If that is not possible, may I request for the IP user to be blocked? Rethliopuks (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rethliopuks, I've semi-protected the template for 24 hours. I'd look a bit more deeply into this matter, but it's 11:30 pm on Sunday where I'm at & I need to be up for work at 6:00 am tomorrow. -- llywrch (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I really appreciate it.Rethliopuks (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Vance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for formally closing the RfC on including concerts/tours in articles about Korean musicians. Your finding that this content is appropriate for those articles should help protect equitable standards in Wikipedia for all musicians, regardless of nationality.

Just in case it may lead to any misunderstandings later, it would probably be best to clear up what seems to be some confusion about the requirement for notability vs. verifiability of content listed in the concerts/tours section of a musician's article.

According to Wikipedia's Notability Guideline, "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists"[1] The Notability Guideline (Music) that you referenced in your RfC Result specifically allows musician articles to include tours that don't meet the Notability Guideline: “Tours that cannot be sufficiently referenced in secondary sources should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article.”[2]

Consulting the precedent set by the featured article on U2[3], you can see that one of their early tours (11 O'Clock Tick Tock Tour) doesn't appear to be notable, as it didn't merit a separate article. Looking at the separate article for the tour before it (U2-3 Tour), that one doesn't appear to meet the Notability Guideline either. Nevertheless, those tours must have met the Verifiability Policy, and they have been included on the Tours list in the U2 article.

Not requiring all listed concerts/tours to be notable seems to follow Wikipedia's fundamental principle to use common sense. It's likely that concerts/tours at the beginning of a musician's career wouldn't meet that guideline due to lack of attention from the media, but omitting them from an encyclopedia listing would 1) make it incomplete, which would decrease its value as a resource; and 2) present a misleading impression that all the musician's concerts/tours were notable, when the unnotable ones had simply been omitted.

Another way to look at this situation would be to recognize the similarity in the listing of tours and albums. A notable musician may have released some albums that weren't notable, but omitting them from a Discography list would make it incomplete and misleading. Those lists don't include the qualifier “Notable” in their headers, so readers would expect them to be comprehensive summaries of the musician's full career. Of course, common sense should be applied to the quality of list content, such as including only full-length albums (not every single release) and only major concerts/headlining tours (not small showcases with many other acts). Also, Wikipedia's Verifiablity Policy should still be followed.[4]

I would appreciate your help in clearing up this confusion for me and others.

Hyuny Bunny (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyuny Bunny, the issue of notability vs. verifiability did not come up in this discussion, so I can't provide the clarification you request. I can offer my opinion, but inasmuch as I haven't made any substantial edits to articles on music groups or pop musicians, I doubt my opinion would have any more validity than your own. IMHO, the best place for you ask this question would be the talk pages of WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (music). -- llywrch (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, thanks for your reply, and sorry if my message wasn't clear enough. In the discussion[5], there appeared to be consensus among the uninvolved editors (who had made substantial edits to articles on music groups, and who included an administrator) on the requirement for verifiability of concerts/tours. The issue of notability was brought up by one involved user who had deleted that content (who I don't believe has made substantial edits to articles on music groups, and who is not an administrator), but they didn't press the issue after I pointed out that according to Wikipedia, "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists". You seemed to bring up the issue again in your Result: "An article about notable Korean musicians can include a section listing concerts/tours that meet the guidelines for notability." As the Notability Guideline appears clear in stating that lists in articles don't need to meet its criteria, and even specifically covered the case of concert tours, it would feel odd to have to ask the question in those other places that you recommended. Before getting even more people involved, I just wanted to confirm if you could review the consensus stated by the uninvolved editors on that issue in the discussion, and could perhaps include it in the result? Hyuny Bunny (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyuny Bunny, from my understanding of the discussion -- which had ended long before I made a formal close -- consensus emerged on only one topic: that when it comes to the matter of concerts or tours, there is no reason to uniformly exclude them, yet there is no reason to require their inclusion: an editor can or may include a section about them. One may decide to make a decision based on other criteria, such as relevance or importance -- but no consensus emerged about these criteria. The discussion addressed the question you posed -- "Should a section listing concerts/tours be included in articles about notable Korean musicians?" -- not notability or verifiability. -- llywrch (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, please excuse the request for further clarification. I appreciate your previous advice about other Talk Pages, and I'll try to follow it later if necessary. I wasn't aware of any need to pose the question of notability, as it hadn't been cited before as a justification for deleting the content, and it seemed clear afterwards that it wasn't required according to the Wikipedia guideline. Just curious -- if the discussion didn't address notability and no consensus emerged on that topic, why did the result address it? Hyuny Bunny (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question in the first response, & have been repeating myself since. There is nothing further for me to say about the discussion I closed. -- llywrch (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this discussion. I agree with your close. Thank you, llywrch. Dr. K. 23:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are doing well. I was not going to comment here as I havent done much actual contribution to the encyclopaedia. But I was surprised to see no one has greeted you yet. I hope your surgery was smooth, and your eyes get as good as new in no time. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw your comment on The Signpost that "FWIW, if anyone is interested in creating more articles on women of the Early Roman Empire, the definitive work is Marie-Therese Raepsaet-Charlier, Prosopographie des femmes de Prosopographie des femmes de l'ordre sénatorial (Ier - IIe siècles) (Louvain: Peeters, 1987). Not only am I unable to find a copy anywhere close to me, it is in French, a language I cannot read." My local library has a copy of this book and I have a basic reading knowledge of French. However, I don't know a lot about the early Roman empire, or what these kinds of articles ought to look like. I'd be happy to spend a couple afternoons getting articles started, or improving existing articles -- do you have any advice on where I ought to start? Would it be helpful if I scanned some sections of the book so you or other editors could try them in google translate? ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 22:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is cool. I've long been hoping someone would pursue this. Let me continue my response on your talk page, so you don't need to keep coming here for tips. -- llywrch (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lllywrch. I don't know you and I've never seen you in my life but, in the summary revision history of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and partly also in your opinion you gave over there, you used to insult me by giving me two very strong words: "troll" and "incompetent". I hate ALL type of insults. That's why, for the second strong word you gave me in your summary ("incompetent"), I quote you a sentence from the paragraph "Responding to suspected lack of competence" on WP:CIR:

• Alleging incompetence: It is generally inadvisable to call a person "incompetent" or their editing "incompetent". While being direct with problems is advisable, it is possible to be direct without being insulting. Telling people their work displays incompetence does nothing to improve their work; it only serves to put them on the defensive, making them less receptive to instruction. Luigi1090 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch,

Can anything be done about this vandalism-only IP [6]? They've never done anything except make unproductive edits as far as I can see.

Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ermenrich, it appears you have done about all that can be usefully done here -- reverting the vandalism. That IP address belongs to an ISP in the UK, & it appears to be a dynamically allocated address that ISP assigns to its DSL users. In short, that vandal can evade any block on that IP address by simply resetting his modem, which will then effect a block on an innocent bystander. And the vandal is likely some kid who made those edits out of boredom, so no real problem in ignoring it. -- llywrch (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be possible to change Black Kite's "Blocked" header at all? Given the main header is about me, it kind of looks like I was the one blocked. If not, not the end of the world. TTN (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole discussion about the header that user was involved with was about the title of the main header, "User:TTN Again... tireless, longstanding inability to understand why he's a problem." I don't particularly care either way about that one. The header that says "Blocked" is my only point of contention, simply because it appears at a glance to be a resolution to the thread involving me. TTN (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I hadn't noticed that implication. More than a reasonable request. I'll fix that. -- llywrch (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive As you have taken part in previous GAN Backlog drives, or are a prolific GAN reviewer, you might be interested to know that the April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive starts on April 1, and will continue until the end of May.

Harrias ^talk 06:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Llywrch. You have new messages at Jo-Jo Eumerus's talk page.
Message added 19:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Llywrch! Saw your additions to Cornelia gens, and my first thought when I saw the second entry was, "I wonder if I can fill in that praenomen?" Of course, I saw your post the previous day on "history being written between the brackets", on the father of Didius Julianus, and replied, although as I said, I don't have the answer. I did a quick inscription search and found only one entry that obviously referred to the younger Cornelius Repentinus—and of course, it gave his praenomen between the brackets, although I don't know the basis on which it does so—here it is, in case you hadn't seen it when you moved the article from the tria nomina to its present location: AE 2015, 1678. This could be exactly what you were talking about, but since I'm not sure how you wanted to treat this type of epigraphic evidence, where I presume the inferred praenomen is from a scholarly source, but not directly attested in the inscription, I thought I should double-check. I also noticed this inscription, for a Servius Cornelius Repentinus and his wife, not Didia Clara—so we can probably infer it's not the same son, if it's a relative at all: CIL X, 2332. I can't imagine adding every Cornelius for whom there's epigraphic evidence to the article—there might be a thousand or more, including all the freedmen and colonists, many of them not dateable, or dateable only within a century or more—but it seems rather likely that another Repentinus during the same time period would be related somehow, possibly a younger son or grandson. I'm on the fence about adding it, but would like your opinion. P Aculeius (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi P Aculeius! If you saw my comment at the Didia (gens) talk page, then you know I found some evidence for Didius Julianus' praenomen. As for the Cornelii Repentini, the only one I am certain about is the father -- I added the relevant epigraphic evidence to the article. (I wrote the article in a rush last night & admit I was careless: I found I needed to read Camodeca's article, but I was having too many problems running it thru Google Translate. I'll get his article translated Monday & revise my draft accordingly.) As for the son...your guess is at least as good as mine. Even if the first inscription you list refers to Repentinus Minor, as you say it is not evidence that it was Sextus, just an assumption by an expert. (Leunissen's prosopography might have a clue, but that's a problem I'm going to leave for another time.) The second inscription -- concerning Servius Cornelius Repentinus -- is something of a puzzle. The authorities claim that the Cornelii Repentini come from North Africa, yet the inscription is from Puteoli, the home of Didius Julianus' mother's family. Could Ser. Cornelius Repentinus be the son of Cornelius Repentinus Minor & Didia Clara? If so, that would mean both survived the purges of both Septimius Severus & his bloodthirsty son Caracalla. IMHO, that's as good a guess as any. -- llywrch (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it, but I think I was already writing this—or possibly posted it first. I've never been in any doubt about the emperor's praenomen—plenty of sources give it as "Marcus", even if the reason they do so isn't immediately apparent. Your original comment indicated that it was given as "Quintus" in the article, but it was his father's name that was given as "Quintus" there, and as you point out, we're not sure where that comes from yet. As for Repentinus, there are many possibilities—he might not have been related at all, or not closely; the inscription might date to before the purges; or possibly he just seemed too unimportant to be worth purging. I think I'll add him—if the emperor had a connection with Puteoli, it seems less likely to be a complete coincidence, even if it's not clear how Servius was related to him. P Aculeius (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished a brief article on the Iallia gens. The nomen was added to the list of Roman gentes a couple of years ago by an anonymous IP editor who added tons of nomina, but as far as I can tell wrote nothing about them, then moved from 'I' to 'J' by the same editor. Having scrutinized the I's and J's a bit over the weekend, I decided it just looked and pronounced more naturally with an 'I', having come down on the opposite side of the matter with "Jania". Admittedly it's a little arbitrary, but I note the List of Roman Consuls also uses "Iallius" for the consul of 158, and I didn't feel like moving your article on Marcus Jallius Bassus to "Marcus Iallius Bassus" without asking you first—although I think that would look better in English.

As I was working on the article, I found some inscriptions for a Iallius Antiochus, who seems to have been governor of Numidia under Constantine and Licinius. Before adding him I looked at our articles on Numidia and Africa Proconsularis, and didn't see him listed among the governors. I'm not sure whether to add him, or whether Governors of Africa is the right place. At least the time period is clear! Perhaps you could advise me on this. Also, since you have—or have seen—Alföldy's work on Marcus Iallius Bassus, perhaps you can tell me whether he has anything to say on the Marcus Iallius Bassus who's buried at Alba Helviorum, or on the Quintus Iallius Bassus who was consul in 158. Was he Marcus' older or younger brother, and was the burial their father? Were the subsequent women of this gens descendants of one of the two consuls? I find myself intrigued by what seems to have been a moderately prominent family, which seems to have gone unnoticed by contemporary historians. P Aculeius (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And on another note

Just did an article on the Javolena gens, and saw your excellent work on the articles on two of its members, the consuls Lucius Javolenus Priscus, and Gaius Javolenus Calvinus. I think it would be fine to move Priscus' article to the tria nomina, if you wanted, since his full name is so long. But that's not why I'm writing! I noted the interesting "discussion" between Birley and Salomies concerning whether he was an Octavius from Dalmatia or a Javolenus from Iguvium—and Salomies opining as to whether the 'L' for "Lucius" wasn't a later interpolation, as it was written over another letter. For whatever my opinion may be worth—not much!—I think I agree with Salomies that he was a Javolenus, since he was usually called "Lucius Javolenus Priscus", as the article says. But as for whether "Lucius" was an interpolation, I found it given in multiple inscriptions—not between the brackets—so I'd say it's authentic; and looking down the list of Javoleni, the ones with praenomina are almost evenly split between Gaius and Lucius. I thought you might want to update the discussion in the article in light of the other inscriptions—I cited all of them in "Javolena gens", so just click on the citations if you want to see what they say and decide whether it's worth doing. P Aculeius (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, @P Aculeius: you make it a challenge to respond by starting two threads. But I'll see if I can manage to do so coherently.

First, I have no real opinion on the Iallus vs. Jallus issue. I've wondered if the name should be pronounced "Yallius" (thus having its origins in a Latin or at least a related Italic language) or "Ee-allius" (thus clearly not having an Italic origin; maybe Greek?) I'm honestly surprised that I decided on a J, but it until its origins are determined, it could be either. (I would have answered with a brief note this morning, & continued with an answer once I got home & could consult Alföldy, but got busy with work. Struggled for a couple of hours with why an application on one computer wouldn't talk to another on a different one, until I finally noticed the system times on each computer differed by exactly five years.) About how Marcus & Quintus are related ... Alföldy is silent. The fact that both share the elements "Iallius Bassus" makes it very likely; it is hard not to think they must be brothers, or at least cousins. What causes me to hesitate is that it was in the second century that the familial element shifted from gentilicum + cognomen to praenomen + gentilicum: it is more likely at this time that two Marci Iallii are related than two Iallii Bassi. But I'm not informed enough to know how late praenomina were still used to distinguish a father from a son. FWIW, based on the inscriptions Marcus' full name (including filation & tribal affiliation) was M. Jallius M.f. Volt. Bassus Fabius Valerianus, so if they are brothers, Quintus would be the younger brother.

About Lucius Javolenus Priscus, I have to admit it was Gog the Mild who brought out the contrast between the two authorities: my draft tended to set out the biographical details in chronological order. I'll likely need to wait on improving either article, because I've discovered a couple of more pressing subjects that need adding -- my own examples of how much more family histories lurk just below the horizon of general histories. One is that a freedman of Claudius -- who managed to avoid the proscriptions of Nero & the Year of Four Emperors -- managed to influence Vespasian & Titus to appoint his son & son-in-laws into positions of great power. (Yes, I do have a reliable source for this story.) My problem with incorporating this is figuring out how to fit it into Wikipedia's presentation style -- & find the time to plan it out. The other history (which is more of a case of Original Research) is a fascination with the family of the Titi Flavii Tatiani. Part of my fascination is the question whether they are somehow related to the family of T. Flavius Vespasian & T. Flavius Sabinus: a paper by Werner Eck & Andreas Pangerl argues that Titus Flavius Norbanus was a distant relation to these Flavians, which explains his loyalty to Domitian at the critical moment when Lucius Antonius Saturninus rebelled. Einen besseren Ausweis für seine Zuverlässigkeit konnte er nicht bieten, ("A better explanation for his loyalty could not be produced") write Eck & Pangerl. From this detail -- "T. Flavius" -- one has to wonder if that equestrian family wasn't descended from a cousin of Vespasian; I doubt were descended from Domitian's nephews (who vanish from history around 96), because (1) they would belong to the Senatorial class & (2) they would be prime targets for execution due to presenting rallying figures for individuals opposed to Trajan. It was not until the 3rd century that non-Senators could aspire to become emperors, so this kept the Titi Flavii safely out of competition for that post. But other than the names, there is no reason to assume they are related, & it makes no difference in writing up their histories -- except as providing another example of a family that survived from Republican times as late as AD 200. -- llywrch (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for overdoing it! For me it's just housekeeping—I've been working on clearing redlinks out of the 'S' gentes—some belonging to my original scan of DGRBM for likely articles, and some added by our anonymous IP gentile adder, who added some very obscure names, although I don't feel like I should delete them if there are enough inscriptions to demonstrate that such a family existed—and skimming miscellaneous inscriptions looking for examples of various uncommon and rare praenomina—and in the process I noticed several 'I/J' names that might bulk up the otherwise conspicuously skimpy sections for those letters. Since it looked like none of them would take very long to write up, I went back and added them, along with a couple of redlinks left by "anonymous IP", and anything I found by checking for inscriptions matching miscellaneous I/J entries in PIR, which I hadn't done originally.

As for Iallius/Jallius, I just find the former looks more natural to me—given rules of pronunciation in Classical Latin, the choice is somewhat arbitrary in any case; note how many editors insist on writing "Iulius" and "Iunius" although even seasoned historians usually prefer "Julius" and "Junius". I've generally gone by whether the initial would be more of a consonant or a vowel in English, but I think that "Ia-" can go either way—Janius probably influenced by "Janus" and "January", but that doesn't help with "Iallius". You probably found it with a 'J' in your sources, but if you don't care I might move it—the old title will still redirect, and I'll note the spelling in the lead. I find it hard to believe that the two Iallii Bassi would not be closely related, if the only ones who ever held the consulship did so within a year or two of each other. I agree that Quintus is likely to be the younger brother, if they were brothers, since Marcus had his father's praenomen—but Quintus was consul first, it appears, and naming traditions were certainly not inflexible, so he could still possibly have been the elder—although we can't be sure they were brothers; perhaps Quintus was an uncle or a cousin. I'll make the note on Javolenus Priscus, since you don't have the time. I just thought I'd better let you know first—I'll take care not to overstate the significance, however.

I admire you for chasing down the details on these Titii Flavii. It sounds like quite a probable explanation, as you say. Though I will add that certain emperors were obviously less bloodthirsty than others, the "five good emperors" being prime examples, and once secure on the (metaphorical) throne, may not have considered every distant relative of their predecessors a significant threat—in some cases they may even have given some thought to grooming them as potential heirs, since several of emperors prior to Marcus Aurelius (and going back to Augustus) seem to have spent considerable time trying to decide who might make a good successor, without necessarily favouring their closest relatives. P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was working on the Silii today and noticed the apparently remarkable coincidence in this fellow's article: that he died in the emperor's presence on June 30, AD 70 7 (just in time for his replacement to be inaugurated on July 1, and serve exactly six months until the end of the year). It's cited to Velleius Paterculus, who does mention that he died without realizing his full potential—but it doesn't say that he died in the emperor's presence (at least, not in the Loeb edition). The Fasti Capitolini, AE 1927, 101 don't mention him dying in office, nor do the Fasti Albenses, AE 2012, 437, and the Fasti Urbisalvienses, AE 1982, 240 say that he resigned. He may well have resigned due to ill health, or simply before achieving anything after his consulship, but I can't find anything to say precisely how or when. Could this dramatic end be in error? P Aculeius (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, @P Aculeius: I have no idea why I wrote that. Glancing at the sources I would have used back then (between attending to getting my daughters in bed & asleep), I found nothing. Velleius, as you mention, merely says that he experienced "an untimely death"; Syme, in a footnote, mutters that Silianus died "soon after" he stepped down from his consulship (Augustan Aristocracy, p. 101 n. 51) -- which could be anything from a few weeks to a few years afterwards. I even checked my copy of Suetonius (Robert Graves' translation for Penguin Press), & failed to find a single mention of Silianus.

I'd remove it without a second thought -- & that might be the right thing to do -- except I just handled a similar incident with an article I wrote around that time -- Titus Flavius Sabinus (consul AD 69). I was reviewing the article about his colleague as consul, Coelius Sabinus, & was surprised I had written that the two were brothers. Looking at the writings of Ollie Salomies, I was led to conclude the two were not related: he discusses the origins of Coelius Sabinus' polyonomous name, but makes no reference to the identity of his father. As I started to remove the statements about that, I happened to look at Tacitus, Histories i.77 where Tacitus writes "Caelius Sabinus and his brother Flavius were to be consuls till the first of July" -- I had caught a detail that escaped Salomies' erudition!

To repeat myself, the best thing would be to remove this statement, although there is a small chance that was what actually happened. I'll leave it up to you. -- llywrch (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could be my lack of sleep talking, but I think I'll just comment it out for now, and if the reason occurs to you, there'll be a reminder. P Aculeius (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Titus Flavius Sabinus (consul AD 82), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domitius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While working on an article for the Sollia gens this morning, I noticed this second century funerary inscription, CIL IX, 5155, apparently referring to a consul Sollius, whose name is not preserved in the inscription, although his brother's is. This was notable enough to be mentioned in PIR, and the two have entries in PW as well, although there's no Sollius in our List of Roman Consuls or List of Undated Roman Consuls. The PW entry cites Mommsen for a Lucius Sollius having been a colleague of Lucius Julius Ursus Servianus, who was consul in AD 90, 102, and 134. Looking over the List of Roman Consuls, it doesn't look like this Sollius fits well in 90 or 102—but there seems to be a gap in 134, during which there could easily be three unknown consuls, although as it stands now none of them would have been the colleague of Servianus. What do you make of this, and do you have any idea where Mommsen would have gotten the name "Lucius Sollius" for a colleague of Servianus? P Aculeius (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I may have found Mommsen's source, or at least something like it: CIL III, 9759. That's dated to AD 121, but I note that many inscriptions cover different periods of time, so it's not impossible that the latter part refers to a later consulship than the beginning. I saw this inscription before, but hadn't remembered who Servianus was, or seen the PW entry mentioning him yet. P Aculeius (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, P Aculeius. You have definitely found an interesting problem. First, I'll admit that our list of consuls is not exhaustive. Back in the day, Oatley2112 started the list of undated consuls -- all of the known consuls without a firm date -- & I updated it up to AD 200. But I know there are a number I missed before that year.

Looking up the entry at Clauss-Slaby, I found a couple of details that make this matter even more complex. First, if you look at the pdf page from CIL IX, you'll notice that that the word COS is in italicized capitals: as I understand it, the convention in the original CIL volumes was that letters previously seen but later missing (stone inscriptions unfortunately break) are presented in italicized capitals. Second, that this inscription no longer exists; the editor of CIL IX relied on earlier published accounts of this inscription. So we are forced to rely entirely on the accuracy & competence of some individual from the 18th or 19th century, who are not known for meeting modern expectations of accuracy. Nevertheless, every other authority I've checked with accepts this restoration: at least some experts believe there was a suffect consul Sollius.

Of course, putting a date to this inscription is a challenge. It's obvious that this inscription could date from any point from c. 40 to c. 250: not before the first date because we know all of the consuls up to that point; & not after the second because that is when Senators no longer held military commissions. My own gut feeling is it was engraved in the 2nd century. We receive a more accurate dating from Mirelle Corbier, who published the only discussion on Sollius I've found. (There is a link to her monograph at the Eagle database.) Although she wrote in French, Google translate provides the following translation (which I cleaned up a bit, & removed her footnotes):

Of the epitaph that M. Sollius Atticus had engraved for his brother only the lower part remains. The name of the deceased is lost; we must restore the gentilicum as Sollius. The senator was certainly from Truentum, in Picenum, where he was buried; he wears a Celtic gentilica, which testifies to an ancient Celtic settlement in the region.

From his career, presented in direct order, we know only three praetorian posts and the consulate suffect. The curatorship of the Viae Clodia, Annia, Cassia and Ciminia was probably the first or the second function exercised after the praetorship, as shown by the list of curators of this network of Etruria drawn up by H.-G. Pflaum. The titlature of Sollius is interesting: it only mentions the four viae Clodia, Annia, Cassia and Ciminia and, on the other hand, omits the Via Nova Traiana or the Via Tres Traianae, which, at certain times, were under the same control. This peculiarity dates from the curatorship of the second century, and perhaps even from the end of the century.

Sollius then left for Spain, where he commanded, at Legio (Leon), the VII Gemina Felix, before the year 197, which is when the legion received the nickname of pia which it does not bear on the inscription.

He returned to Rome to administer the Aerarium militare, probably for three years, and obtained the consulate. (pp. 436f)

So if go by the rule that we report was is verifiable, not what is likely true, not only was Sollius a legatus legionis, curator of roads, & a prefect of the aerarium militare, but a suffect consul. IMHO, I'm dubious about the office of consul. But by that point our knowledge of who held which offices when gets very fuzzy, so I could be wrong. -- llywrch (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Llywrch. I'll stop pestering you with stuff like this if you prefer, but I thought I'd ask whether you had any thoughts on Marcus Pedo Vergilianus, the consul who died in an earthquake at Antioch in AD 115. I was just working on the Statilii, one of whom replaced him, and noticed the conspicuous lack of a nomen gentilicium. I looked (without success) for an inscription that might give his full nomenclature, then found him mentioned briefly in PW, under "Pedo", where it seems to be saying (and I could be misunderstanding it) to look under "Marcus Popilius Pedo Vergilianus". However, there's no entry under that name—the Popillii, with two l's, are there, and one or two of them is surnamed "Pedo", but none is called "Vergilianus" or seems to fit in the right time frame. I might be looking in the wrong place (I tried searching through the supplements, but had no luck; I find them horribly confusing), or maybe I misunderstood what the entry under "Pedo" meant. A Google search revealed only Turkish and Russian web sites with the name as spelled in PW. But what do you think? Am I understanding it right, and is there any reason to conclude that he was a Popillius, besides the occurrence of that surname amongst the Popillii? I would love to fill in his nomen, but only if I'm sure of what it was! P Aculeius (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: No, I don't feel pestered by your questions. I just need to warn you that it often takes a bit longer to answer because I need to get home to consult my references, & I often don't have the time to do so until after dinner is done & cleaned up & the kids are in bed.

But about M. Pedo Vergilianus. When I wrote that article, I added everything I could find at the time. I remember that because I was frustrated that there was so little to say about him -- that he was elected consul & killed in an earthquake was all. (I had a lack of resources for the first decades of the 2nd century at the time, although I've improved my holdings a bit since then.) I never thought about "Pedo" being anything but a nomen gentilicium: this is the first generation of un-Latin names entering the consular lists, so it didn't trigger any alarms for me. It was the contemporary practice -- as Tacitus was in the habit of doing -- to drop the nomen gentilicium when referring to a member of a prominent stirps, e.g. Lucius Piso instead of Lucius Calpurnius Piso. As for "Vergilianus", it obviously is derived from "Vergilus"; that was the poet's family name; so it's possible that his mother was a Vergila, or that Vergilus was his birth name & he was adopted by a M. Pedo (or, if we include his dropped nomen gentilicium, M. Popillius Pedo). Hmm. I'll need to consult Salomies on this, see if he had looked at this name as possible evidence of adoptive naming behavior. -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Llywrch, this is my first time seeing someone removing google books links. Is there any discussion regarding the use of google books? I hope I'm not missing something. I wasn't advertising for google, I included google books links in the Sources as courtesy links. Kind Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheseusHeLl: thanks for asking. I'm unaware of any discussion about using/not using them, but I personally don't see the point of them. Most of the time there is no information at the Google page that the ISBN link doesn't supply, & even if the book is viewable in part or whole, far more often than not I encounter a message telling me that I have exceeded the number of pages I can view.

Normally I don't bother with removing them -- IIRC, this is the first time I have done that -- but I am planning on adding more content to this article, especially on expert discussions of its contents (e.g., implications for local relations between the imperial authority & local tribesmen, how this document deepens our knowledge of the process someone was made a Roman citizen). And since it's not my style to include links to Google books, I removed them. And I'll probably be removing some -- but not all -- of the links you added once I add this discussion because I feel they are superfluous. -- llywrch (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough reply, Llywrch. I totally agree. I forgot that we have Special:BookSources. Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a way to get an idea of user numbers? ((User:Chowbok/Userboxes/Fork)) —Chowbok ☠ 04:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

#coupnotfork (talk page stalker) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I'm willing to wait a short while, on a response to something I volunteered for. But it is intriguing to consider that although the pandemic was reason enough to delay Board elections a second year, the re-branding process was too important to let that delay that process. -- llywrch (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You closed as a deadlock, but democratically there were 13 editors who said include against 6 who said exclude philanthropist from the article. That's somewhat a majority there for inclusion so I am not sure why you say it's a deadlock when there were only about three or four editors who were in talkative argument about it. You also wrote "& a business no philanthropist would be in." Well people had a different mind-set in that period in history, it took a long time for people to learn that slavery is wrong, it's still happening today. I feel you might want to double check what you wrote. User: Hal333 wrote "Removing it would be an affront to Wikipedia's neutrality." and I feel that's a very important issue that's been overlooked by some editors. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: I'll admit that counting noses is always an important step in determining consensus, but so is weighing the various arguments. One reason is to determine if the minority are simply being stiff-necked & thus blocking a consensus. But another is to determine if the arguments the majority present will stand up to the test of time, as well as common sense; on those two premises, the arguments for keeping the word "philanthropist" in the head honestly did not convince me. Those arguments were barren pleas that "this is what the reliable sources say & we must repeat that". One often overlooked aspect of our roles as writers of Wikipedia is that we are not mere copyists of reliable sources -- we must also understand these sources, understand their strengths & weaknesses, then present these reliable sources in a way that explain the subject.

The simple fact is that there is a contradiction -- if not a situational irony here: Colston made a series of charitable donations that benefited his people from money he made buying & selling other people. This is a fact that needs to be acknowledged, whether or not he or his contemporaries were aware of this contradiction -- an issue that was not addressed in this discussion. I am disappointed no one addressed that point; by limiting the discussion to only the inclusion/exclusion of one word, it was far too limited to come any useful conclusion.

And I am coming to this discussion without any conscious preconceptions about the matter. I only know of Colston by hearing in the news that a statue of a "slave-trader" in Bristow was toppled & tossed into the river; I was surprised to learn that there was a statue to such a man in the first place in England -- a country that famously fought against slavery. Once I knew that his contemporaries considered him a philanthropist because of his charity, however, I understood both the statue as well as the controversy. And to omit one or both details from the lead -- that he bought & sold people, then gave away the money he made garnering him the gratitude of his peers -- is to present a biased impression of the man.

While it may seem that I stepped too far in my closing by pointing out the contradiction, this discussion is missing the forest for the trees. Everyone involved is too narrowly focussed on the one word to see it is only part of the whole, a fault we Wikipedians often make, which harms our articles. Contentious subjects frequently result in poorly-written articles where statements are immediately followed by opposing statements, which fail to inform our readers & lead to volunteers being banned because they lost their composure. This could be solved if as a group we tried to find ways to use these facts together -- for example, use irony to emphasize the contradiction -- rather than insist that solutions must always be binary. Rather than insist that "philanthropist" must either be included or excluded in the lead. -- llywrch (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch, i agree wholeheartedly that everyone involved is too narrowly focused on the one word and much of your comments on what the content could be, but this is your novel opinion on article content, and substituting your own judgement for that of all the editors commenting in the RfC. Look at the result, everyone is now even more focused on this single word in the first sentence of the lede. You have encouraged editors to ignore policies and engage in POV editing and OR.

WP:V is widely used as justification in these silly labeling RfCs and usually the deciding argument. Why is it "barren" and "unconvincing" in this case?

You say in the close that to follow Wikipedia policy strictly means a solution cannot be found. To what policy are you referring? fiveby(zero) 11:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. The discussion there is focussed on that one single word because it's where the Moderator decided to begin. I don't agree with that decision, but I have said my piece & am standing back. (I wasn't comfortable with my close, & I realize I could be 100% wrong. I have been before.)
2. Based on my first read, I didn't see any progress by either side: both were talking past each other. After reading Govvy's comment, I went back & re-read the discussion with more care. Neither side made a convincing argument for their choice; each relied on the assumption -- which was otherwise reasonable -- that their opinion was self-evident. The problem was -- & appears to remain -- is that neither side is attempting to reach over the divide & figure out how to honor the other's points. Morality changes with time; slave trading is a bad thing -- how can we include both in the lead?
3. The policy I was referring to was WP:NPOV. Calling someone There are some topics about which we simply can't present a neutral point of view. One is global warming, which is an existential threat; one POV was agreed to, & some long-time Wikipedians left because they felt it violated NPOV. (And even if it did, WP:IAR would then come into play.) However, there are some topics that don't matter on that scale, yet can't be allowed to just rumble on & on. Take the infamous dispute over the name of a city now in Poland on the Baltic sea; this was solved in an imaginative manner. (However, any topic involving Israel/Palestine will be a deadlocked issue, one that we are forced to let rumble on & on. I'm not smart enough to think of any solution for those topics.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just realized you were looking for a real consensus, with editors actually taking other's perspective into account and discussing. That's a little surprising, maybe you need a disclaimer on your closes! Apologies, in comparison to standard practice this looked like a content decision.

Disagree that there is a insoluble NPOV issue, if the lede were simply: Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) would there really be a problem with accurate description in the body that reasonable editors could not solve? fiveby(zero) 14:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I don't convey what I want to say clearly, much to my regret & frustration. -- llywrch (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it was brave of you to take this on, I could see a lot of admins or editors turn away from this kind of issue. So cheers for closing it. Govvy (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brave or stupid. -- llywrch (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm not sure if this is still on your watchlist, is there any merit to these changes?[7]. Thanks. Please ping me if you reply or else I might miss it. Doug Weller talk 08:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:, Hi back. No, that page is not on my watchlist, but I rarely look at it anymore. But I checked it, & while there is some truth there -- yes, there is a Latin word brutus, meaning "heavy", "dull", or "stupid" -- it is carelessly written: Isidore of Seville's name is misspelled, but while the citation to Etymologiae is correct, there is nothing in that part of Isidore's work that connects "Britain" to the person "Brutus". However, the earlier version of this article is problematic: while I have only browsed a short bit of this work (which I found at LactusCurtius), I'm not seeing any connection of "Britain" with the consul in Isidore. Reading my copy of Nennius, I found two proposed identifications of Brutus -- one as grandson of Aeneas, the other as the grandson of Japheth, in a rewritten version of the Table of Nations from Genesis. I have reverted the anon's change, but this entire paragraph needs to be rewritten because it appears to have garbled what the secondary sources state. (Walter Goffart & T.M. Charles-Edwards are both reliable & mainstream authorities in this area.) Sigh. Another mess that needs straightening out. Thanks for the query. -- llywrch (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hate these messes. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and now I am engaged in an edit war with an anon IP. -- llywrch (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same ping pong back and forth about names and titles. Can you do anything about it?Smeat75 (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article review#Elagabalus. Regards, Paul August ☎ 15:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaius Vitrasius Pollio (prefect AD 41), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Porphyry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

About a month ago i threw out a question on Talk:List of Roman Consuls titled Consuls of 434 BC. This in regards to changing of the currently displayed consuls (C. Iulius Iulus & L. Verginius Tricostus) to either M. Manlius Capitolinus Vulso and Q. Sulpicius Camerinus Praetextatus as consuls or Manlius, Sulpicius together with Ser. Cornelius Cossus as Consular Tribunes. This, as the note mentions, being both preferred over the displayed consuls, as argued by Broughton.

The ever active P Aculeius answered with a positive towards this change, but wanted to wait with changing anything with the words: "But I'd like to hear from llywrch, who's done more work to get this list into good order than anyone over the years."

So im simply pinging here on your talk page in hope of getting a response to this question.

Kind Regards! CutieyKing (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Titus Aius Sanctus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campana.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

October GAN Backlog Drive As you have taken part in previous GAN Backlog drives, or are a prolific GAN reviewer, you might be interested to know that the October 2020 GAN Backlog Drive starts on October 1, and will continue until the end of the month.

-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]