- 1 Please add new messages/topics using "new section" button (above)
- 2 You've got mail!
- 3 Catherine the Great
- 4 File jamming
- 5 Catherine II, Empress of Russia
- 6 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 7 Your comment lighted my day
- 8 hey Haploidavey
- 9 A kitten for you!
- 10 Please accept this, my first ever Barnstar
- 11 You've got mail!
- 12 Article on Cambrige UP
- 13 Merry Christmas and happy holidays!
- 14 Phosphate analysis in archaeological sites
- 15 Thanks Bozo
- 16 Stop vandalism my work
- 17 Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
- 18 Disambiguation link notification for March 10
- 19 Zagreus edits
- 20 A barnstar for you!
- 21 Cyamites
- 22 british berrichon
- 23 ygm (Questia)
- 24 Talk:Africa on Jimbo's page
- 25 Pocahontas
- 26 Ludus Dacicus
- 27 Help with proposed move
- 28 Question about source for Augur
- 29 Need sources?
- 30 Image of Roman soldier ... or not?
- 31 Oswald Foundation
- 32 Thanks for the welcome!
- 33 Hello Haplodavy
- 34 Hadrian: Athenian inscription
- 35 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 36 December 2017
- 37 Thanks…
- 38 Revdel
- 39 A barnstar for you!
- 40 Time lord
- 41 Cleopatra commands that you be in her presence at once
- 42 ANONYMOUS
- 43 Edesia and Bibesia: Goddesses or something else?
- 44 Rewriting and resourcing the clothing subsection of Roman Republic
- 45 Disambiguation link notification for June 4
- 46 Rithme4
- 47 Roman Republic
- 48 A Stella Horrei Taciti for you
- 49 Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire
- 50 RE: Hippodrome of Berytus
- 51 Pending requests
- 52 Toga virilis
- 53 Roman Republic
- 54 Very Sorry
- 55 Deacon Blue
- 56 Roman gussets. Is this you?
- 57 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
New Romulus and Remus Article
Hi, I have been working on a revised R & R article. You're the first to whom I've shown it. What should I do next? I'd like feed back/help. Also, don't hesitate to tell me it sucks and to forget about it :-)Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you saw the current draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InformationvsInjustice/sandbox1 which I might have moved since I posted the original message asking for your input. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, and please see my response to your comments. thanks Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Catherine the Great
Thank you, I included a source from reliable historian Norman Davies in A History of Europe who believes she ordered the assassination. Many historians find her participation undeniable. Ctmuva2000 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, this is my first attempt at editing, I appreciate your feedback. I still find it highly likely that she ordered the assassination, in addition to the arrest, and I believe many historians concur. I appreciate your expertise on the subject. Just thought I might be able to contribute in a small way! Ctmuva2000 (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for your reply. Like I say, I am new to the editing process. This just seemed like a logical place to begin because I had always believed she ordered the assassination. Norman Davies says explicitly in Europe: A History that she was responsible, so I know at least one reliable historian believes she was complicit. I believe Wikipedia is a valuable resource and I appreciate your contribution! Ctmuva2000 (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! There is a user trying to circumvent the consensus against file jamming . He's already at 3RR. Could you please keep an eye on it? Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Haploidavey you have remove photos and editing captions that had been present for more than three years with ridiculous reasons--Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Catherine II, Empress of Russia
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Your comment lighted my day
Thank you for extending your appreciation for my edits to the Chernobyl accident article. It was entirely unexpected. Such words of support give me reason to stay in what is usually a very bemusing and difficult to understand atmosphere of interacting with other editors, who in very many cases, have axes to grind. In respect to Chernobyl, I am still very skeptical about much that has been written about the calamity, as it is rare to find someone without an incentive to down-play, or as is more frequently the case, exaggerate its effect.
I suppose that may always go with the territory in the weird and wonderful world of nuclear matters. Sifting thru opinion-piece after opinion-piece to try and find some truth, can indeed be exhausting.
In any case, I'm glad someone informed me that my efforts to uncover the truth of the accident have been warmly appreciated.
Hoping you receive this belated msg in outstanding health,
Ok, I see your point, I will create a page regarding the research later, try to be as neutral as possible. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex981202 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Hi! Thank you for your feedback! I'm still learning so any feedback is good. I couldn't see any page numbers on the article itself so it was hard to say. All I know is that it was under the introduction.
Please accept this, my first ever Barnstar
|The Guidance Barnstar|
|For invaluable help in editing Romulus and Romulus and Remus Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)|
You've got mail!
Article on Cambrige UP
Hi. I've seen that you've got an access to Cambridge University Press Ressources. Could it been possible to send me the pdf of an article that I find in a Journal on this site ? This is this one. I can't get it in a university library or other library near from my home, so it would be a great help. You can answer me by sending me an email, I will answer you quickly. Thanks very much. Mel22 (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer. No problem, I can wait. Thanks a lot. Mel22 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and happy holidays!
I ran across this a few days ago by accident. The source and creator might sound familiar to you. :-) But I think it's copied from here] and I'm considered deleting the page. But I'll wait if you want to use it for evidence. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- That was well-timed! I didn't figure out the source for Sassa - but then, this is very much your speciality, so I forgive myself... The suspected sock (see how careful I'm being!) has left quite a trail of dubious sources behind them, peppered throughout Balkans-related articles; most of which have (unsurprisingly, perhaps) always suffered a tendency to whacky, fringey and generally non-encyclopedic input. I've a mind to check all their contributions, and delete any material they've added to articles using the same or similarly dubious, non-RS and other sources not yet investigated. There seem to be plenty - likewise for the suspected sockmaster and their proven socks. Could you advise me on whether this would be a right/proper thing to do? Haploidavey (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- PS - per your links, yes, please hold off the deletion for a bit. The article creator seems to have made no effort at all to brush away the traces of outright copy-pasting from Wipikedia or elsewhere. Sassa's material seems to be GNU-licensed; am I right in assuming that automatically qualifies it and any derivatives as an unreliable source? From Sassa itself - "MediaWiki is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE". (Tut, no need to shout). I guess that answers my question. Haploidavey (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
|Leave my work alone|
|Thank you ConstantinVacheron (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)|
- Not at all. Thank you. Perhaps you'll respond to the sockpuppet allegation? Haploidavey (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Stop vandalism my work
|Stop calling me a sockpuppet|
|I am a university lecturer, many years ago previous|
- I've not called you a sockpuppet. I've alleged that you might be, based on your editing pattern. The allegation is supported by evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mkd07. Please respond there, thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Haploidavey! Long time no see. How are things going with you? I just got another article passed as a successful GA candidate: Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Hopefully somewhere Philip II or Alexander the Great are smiling down on it, you know, if ghosts are privy to the digital world (perhaps only the "ghosts in the gears" have that sort of access). Pericles of AthensTalk 18:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, very nice to hear from you! I've been watching your t-page and following your progress quite closely, here and there. You seem to be blessed, somehow, with a robust editing constitution; viz that you managed to develop that article and survive! So many have been drawn unwittingly beyond reach of daylight or reason by the bottomless, voracious swamp-demon of the Balkans. Seriously, amazing work you've done on the article.
- And who'd have guessed, but my two delightful pupeteer's awards (immediately above) were given by a committed Balkaneer-cum-puppeteer! Great fun, and prone to inventing sources from nowhere... for some reason, the reliable sources noticeboard doesn't address the possibility that a source might be non-existent - it only deals with use/misuse, main/fringe and reliability issues. Tuh!
- Speaking of mires and whatnot... on Saturday I very stupidly drove my car into a grassy swamp, not figurative but a proper, wet, slimy and squidgy real swamp, and had to be drawn out with tractor and chains. Fortunately, I cost me nothing (the farmer's a good friend) except my self-esteem, which is now healthily slimmed down to a couple of microns. Hm, I wonder what Alexander would have done? Haploidavey (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Haploidavey! Sorry to hear about your woes, both in regards to Balkan sockpuppets and car accidents involving swamps. Good thing your friend had that tractor! Don't feel too bad; I've been in two car accidents before (one minor, another one pretty bad). Never a fun deal. Just relish in the fact that you were able to squash that sockpuppet pest! Of that I think Alexander would be proud. ;) Pericles of AthensTalk 19:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ficus Ruminalis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lupa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Actually this edit seems to be a copy paste from here, which in turn apparently was mostly copied from the site you mentioned in your edit summary, so definitely a copyvio. Paul August ☎ 13:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ta... quite remarkable. The editor seems to have simply substituted one name for the other. I'll ask for a revdel. Haploidavey (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|great contributions! Vanishadans (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)|
I have been on Wikipedia for a few years now, but have yet to learn how to sign my name and date it. As for the recent edit though, I appreciate your skepticism, and ability to demand credible citations. I am hoping however, that you might be able to tell me if this one is sufficient to support the claim regarding Cyamites
"On the road stands a small temple called that of Cyamites. [Note] I cannot state for certain whether he was the first to sow beans, or whether they gave this name to a hero because they may not attribute to Demeter the discovery of beans. Whoever has been initiated at Eleusis or has read what are called the Orphica knows what I mean." </ref>http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekFeb2011&getid=1&query=Paus.%201.37.4</ref>
|More puzzled than ever. DEFRA does recognise this breed (see link below to its list of recognised breed breed societies) Messaging you this way as I am uncertain how else to do so! Anyway - appreciate your interest ...
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584737/ovine-list.pdf Synopticus (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Africa on Jimbo's page
Thank you for contacting me regarding my image of the ruins of the Ludus Dacicus in Rome. I understand your valid concerns about the image & appreciate the feedback. However, I would kindly request that you restore the image. I have researched multiple reliable sources that all point to the location of the Ludus Dacicus to the exact point where I took the picture. One of the fragments of the Forma Urbis Romae clearly demonstrates that the Ludus Dacicus was located directly between Trajan's baths & the Ludus Magnus, near the Colosseum. I even used Google Earth to pinpoint the location. You are welcome to also use Google Earth to double check my calculations & geographical research. All the ludi were located next to each other, and all of them were located near the Colosseum, a fact that's well documented. A bit of research will demonstrate to you & anyone that the location of the ruins I photographed is the logical geographical location of the Ludus Dacicus. I went there myself & took the picture, after doing objective & accurate calculations, based on multiple maps & sources, to pinpoint the well-estimated location of the ludus ruins. I have no problem with you putting a caption along with my image saying something akin to "estimated location of the Ludus Dacicus" or "possible location of the Ludus Dacicus" if that makes you feel comfortable. The sources are there to support such a statement. Plus, there are no other historical, geographical or any other kind of marker, at the physical location itself or on any internet map, that show some other ancient place located at that precise spot. So I hope you will consider my appeal and allow the image to be published on the Wikipedia article about the Ludus Dacicus, especially when I have valid sources & maps that all point to the same exact spot that I photographed. Thank you for your consideration & best regards! Alex Dacul
Here are references that support my claim that the image I shared with Wikipedia is indeed of the Ludus Dacicus.
Here is a map that again, supports the location of the Ludus Dacicus precisely where I took my picture.
- The-Colosseum.net http://www.the-colosseum.net/games/ludi.htm. Missing or empty
- Imperium Romanum http://www.romanoimpero.com/2010/03/ludus-magnus-palestra-gladiatori.html. Missing or empty
- Nemesis Pro Nobis http://nemesispronobis.forumactif.com/t79-quelques-ludus. Missing or empty
- Gruppo Storico Romano http://lnx.gruppostoricoromano.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ludi_roma.jpg. Missing or empty
Help with proposed move
I've proposed moving Medical cannabis in the United States to Medical marijuana in the United States. My position is that there is no such thing as "Medical cannabis" in the US. Frankly, it's not much of a thing elsewhere. The only reason for the current title is that at some point, for what are no doubt reasonable motives, all pages on WP use cannabis per MOS:CONSISTENCY. To me, arguing for the move is MOS:JARGON, WP:TITLEVAR, WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:COMMONALITY, MOS:STRONGNAT, & WP:IGNORE. It may not be in your wheelhouse, but if you could point me toward any useful essays, policies or discussions, or if you'd like to comment or vote, it would be much appreciated.
I see you added a group of references to this article a few years back, some more self-explanatory than others. However, two listed was given as simply "Brent" & "Britt". Any chance you can remember more about these books/articles than the author's last names? -- llywrch (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi llywrch. "Brent" is almost certainly Brent, A., The imperial cult and the development of church order: concepts and images of authority in paganism and early Christianity before the Age of Cyprian, illustrated, Brill Publishers, 1999. ISBN 90-04-11420-3
- The article has "Brett" (rather than "Britt") but this too should almost certainly be "Brent" (same publication as above). I dumped the material into Augur from Imperial cult (ancient Rome), quite some years ago, evidently typos 'n all, and failed to follow it through; I've done little else to the article since. Having been self-evidently careless but of reasonable conscience, I'd check, if I could; but I've lost access to the work - I lived in london then, and had use of the reading rooms and copious volumes at the British Library. My notes were pretty thorough (and accurate) and I still have most of them. Somewhere. I'll check on Tuesday - that'll be the first opportunity this week. Haploidavey (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- I really am losing it... The work in question's partly available on Google books; page numbers and content seem to match. In short, yes, it's all Brent. Haploidavey (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Btw, the "Rosenstein" source is; Rosenstein, Nathan S., Imperatores Victi: Military Defeat and Aristocratic Competition in the Middle and Late Republic. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Ark.CDlib.org
- Thanks. I thought that might be the case with the first two, but thought it better to ask. BTW, I was a patron of the BL for two weeks back when it was located inside the British Museum. Sitting on the edge of that ocean of printed materials was quite the heady experience. -- llywrch (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that you're waiting on approval for access to The Cambridge Library at the Wikipedia Library. The Cambridge Library currently has a waitlist due to lack of available accounts. In the meantime, the Resource Exchange can help! We connect content creators with reliable sources. If you need a specific article or passage from a book that you don't have access to, drop by and leave a request. We're happy to help you access paywalled and print sources to the extent allowable by copyright law. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob13Talk 03:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Image of Roman soldier ... or not?
Yeah, I was a little surprised that that's what a Roman soldier looks like, but then I thought I'm not really that much of a classical antiquitarian, and maybe whoever labeled it as such knows more than I do. Or the media got it wrong.
Similarly, if you check the Anand Chowdary wiki page (which is now deleted), it had an achievement listed as "IBM Global Entrepreneurship" with reference to a PR website. I checked that site and turns out that it's a place where anyone can post their own Press Release. More than this, on further checking, that PR didn't even have the word IBM anywhere in it. As you said, I am confident that this is a sandcastle, but a multi-linked one. The Anand Chowdhary page relies of Oswald Foundation page and vice-versa to kind of "validate" each other. It is a really well-thought execution, but too bad, they failed. Oswald Foundation too needs to be deleted and I'll vote for it. Icefolk (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome!
Thank you for the welcome! The constructive notes are appreciated.
|Thanks for helping me, apparently i am trying to|
Hadrian: Athenian inscription
Dear Haploidavey, I'm aware of your tremendously effort in rephrasing the article on Hadrian and turning it into a more readable piece.
Therefore, I would suggest you doing away, in the body of the article, with the English transcription of the Athenian inscription detailing Hadrian's early career. As the various steps taken by Hadrian from the vigintivirate up to his Athenian archontate are carefully explained by you in the text, along with the whats, whens, hows and whys of each step, the Latin text of the inscription is already consigned to a footnote. Therefore, the verbatim English transcription has no function other than to allow an unseemly break in the middle of the article. What do you think? I take as granted that you are engaging in copy-editing the article; therefore, I will refrain from interfering myself. RegardsCerme (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, I'm Haploidavey. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jesus in comparative mythology have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Let that be a lesson to me! Haploidavey (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
…for reverting the Osiris-Orion obsessive at Maat and Egyptian temple. In case you aren't aware, he's an Armenian nationalist who lives in an alternate universe in which Armenia is the source of all culture. The Orion-Osiris-Ra-Jesus connection is one small part of his belief system; I forget how it ties in with Armenia, except that Hayk is connected with Orion. Nationalist biases are fun, aren't they?
By the way, do you have any thoughts on the rewritten version of the Isis article? I'm not seeking a peer review or GA review because those processes are so backlogged, but I'd kind like to have a Greece and Rome specialist look at the Greco-Roman sections of the article, even if cursorily, before I send it to FAC. A. Parrot (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, A. Parrot. Nationalist biases can be utterly, weirdly, unintentionally hilarious. Such fun we have at Wikipedia! I've taken a cursory glance at Isis -- it's much improved since I last took an equally cursory glance some years ago. My editing opportunities are rather patchily spread out and unpredictable at the mo' but I'll take a careful look at the article over the coming week, digest what I find there, and post any observations at the article talk page. The best to you, Haploidavey (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I've deleted that edit as well. I think you may well be right that this user didn't know what they are doing (a lot of new users are very clueless about copyright). Hut 8.5 21:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|
|It just occurred to me that I have never really thanked you properly for all the kindness you have shown me and all the encouraging remarks you have left me on my talk page. This is for helping to make Wikipedia a more pleasant place to edit. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)|
- Katolophyromai, thank you! Coming from such a productive, helpful and well-informed editor, that means a lot. I'm sure that one of these days, you'll be a very fine professor of classics. Haploidavey (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
You have to give the guy you just reverted at Aesop full marks for really creative disruption! It was his first edit too. A pity we can't encourage such behaviour, otherwise I'd give him a barn star!! Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that was amusing, Sweetpool50! I used to keep links to the best, most imaginative examples, and even (occasionaly) give an appreciative response at the user's talk-page. Of course, that turned out to be a bad idea. Haploidavey (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Cleopatra commands that you be in her presence at once
Cleopatra VII demands that you make your way to her Wikipedia at once, to see all the frigging work that I just did in rewriting it. I hope to nominate it for GA status this evening or the next. Enjoy! Pericles of AthensTalk 21:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
vagrancts and posting.
Owing to the number of remarks that i get regarding my work, i choose to remain Anonymous. Since i only posted these article yesterday it is unlikel that you nor anyone else will have seen, never mind read my sources.! I would ask you kindly please DO NOT CONTACT Me again. Thank you for your co-operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Sorry to hear that; but the source you added is dated 2006, and is available in several versions online. Haploidavey (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Edesia and Bibesia: Goddesses or something else?
I recently saw your edit summaries on the articles Edesia and Bibesia. I appreciate you correcting Roman mythology to Roman religion and will keep that in mind for future articles. You mentioned that they might not be classified as goddesses as they have no mythology. I think that both deity and numen could replace goddess. Would you be okay with them being classified as deities instead of goddesses? (ex: In ancient Roman religion, Edesia is the deity of food who presides over banquets)
I think that personification could also work, but I want other people's input.
- Hi MarkZusab. Oodles of minor Roman deities have no known mythology but still received some kind of cultus (religious honours and acknowledgment). Having no known mythology doesn't disbar a deity from receiving divine honours at some level. The problem here is your sources. Murray is more reliable than the others BUT we need rather more than his two very brief lines; it seems reasonable to presume that both names crop up somewhere in Vergil. Or Homer, assuming that one of your sources is right in seeing this as an equivalent to potnia. The other sources you've provided don't meet Wikipedia standards for this kind of scholarly material; while they all give the same names, the rest seems to be expanded by more general observations on Roman feasts. Much can be made of little, but more often than not, it shouldn't. I'm reminded of Venus Acidalia, a poetic conceit which is now listed all over the internet as a cultic epithet, complete with temple and location, thanks to a speculative comment by Servius on a line or two in Vergil.
- Numen is a rather difficult and elusive concept, and I'd be unwilling to apply it to either of these without scholarly support; to be honest, the same goes for "personification", or "deity". Without robust secondary sources willing to identify their primary sources, we're not left with much at all. Haploidavey (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- MarkZusab, the sole primary source for these two deities turns out to be St Augustine's Civitatis Dei. In a recent (1998) scholarly translation/edition, published by the eminently respectable Cambridge University Press, they are named Potina, goddess of drink (potio), and Educa, goddess of food (esca). Bear in mind that encyclopaedias "spoil" quite rapidly, and revising editors do their best not to carry errors forwards, into revised editions. The names used in this most recent edition probably represent scholarly consensus on the matter. We probably don't need the name variants found in older editions or translations.
- Whatever their names, they seem to be goddesses. Augustine says very little else about them, merely using them to mock what he sees as yet another fundamental absurdity in Roman "paganism". He doesn't associate them with feasts, wine, or meat; just with eating and drinking, and that in a context of child-rearing. Please check this for yourself; here's a link. And here's a link to the well-sourced Wikipedia List of Roman birth and childhood deities, to which Potina currently redirects. The sole primary source offers nothing more. This raises serious questions regarding the assumptions and assertions made at the several websites you've linked. None of those websites should be used as sources for articles on ancient Roman religion; it's also worth bearing in mind is that being a scholar in one subject area does not make one a scholar in all. Again, this seems a case of too much being read into very little by non-specialised, outdated or unreliable sources. I suggest that these two articles be merged or redirected to List of Roman birth and childhood deities. Haploidavey (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Rewriting and resourcing the clothing subsection of Roman Republic
My most sincere thanks for your valuable (and copious) contributions, and your ever-wise comments and input during discussions.
If you were going to do some work on the Culture section, may I ask you to direct your attention to one of the other subsections. The lede, "Dining", "Education and language", "Arts", and "Sports and entertainment" all need a lot of help. I really would hate to see this article reassessed. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you kindly for that, Informata ob Iniquitatum, though it's ill-deserved! In truth, my contributions have been far from copious lately. I lay no claims to wisdom; occasionaly I work on an article, then read what I've written some months on and wish the earth had swallowed me up before I'd laid two fingers to keyboard. In this case, however, I'll do what I can... probably slowly... between working on stuff I wish I'd written better in the first place; happily enough, some of that stuff covers most of the topics in your list above. Naturally enough, primary and secondary sources for the earlier Republic are few & far between, and for the most part speculative, or else annoyingly tentative-argumentative. Soft at the centre and even softer at the edges. Not what one wants in a general or core article, either as editor or reader; but so it goes. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Republic, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Trojan and Italic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
I blocked them. Sad, but I notice they have never replied on their talk page. I did suggest they try to get adopted but I doubt that they will. But we couldn't just let this editor continue messing up articles. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is sad, Doug, especially because I think they genuinely believed they were helping, and editors seem to be getting thin on the ground. I still wonder if it was all down running articles through a substandard grammar-and-spellcheck - good faith, bad result. I guess we'll never know; but still, under the circumstances, there's no option but blocking. Haploidavey (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Haploidavey has 3 new messages in his inbox!
(1) Haploidavey has been granted citizenship by the Roman Republic and is now a moderator of /r/ancientrome.
(2) Haploidavey has been banned forthwith from entering the city of Carthage.
(3) Haploidavey has received a wink and a nod from Cleopatra VII of Egypt, with the following private message: "call me. +34 922 75 75 43. ;)"
|The Editor's Barnstar|
|For his tireless efforts in editing and improving the article Roman Republic, I, User:PericlesofAthens, bestow thee, Haploidavey, with this most shiny of barn star awards. Wear it proudly. Pericles of AthensTalk 21:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)|
- (1) Alas, the patricians seceded to Minorca. They left me here to mop up the mess they left on the atrium floor.
- (2) Stoopid Carthaginians. They don't know what they're missing.
- (3) I sent her a selfie... she blocked my call!
- That's a real purty barnstar, dear Prince. Very, very shiny. Makes it all worth it. Haploidavey (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- No problem! You're welcome, fair citizen of Rome. Also, Roman artillery can't melt Carthaginian steel beams. The fall of Carthage was an inside job and an Illuminati conspiracy, so their foolish act of disbarring you from their city is the least of their problems! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 11:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
A Stella Horrei Taciti for you
It is my great pleasure to award you this first ever Stella Horrei Taciti (the Barnstar of Tacitus), for contributions related to ancient Roman history.
|STELLA HORREI TACITI (the Barnstar of Tacitus)|
For diligent work on Roman Republic during the spring 2018 GAR reassessment. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire
Hi, you contributed to the talk page of this article a while back and I was looking forward to your revisions of the article but it did not happen. It seems I am getting into a conflict over that article again, third party perspectives very welcome. Please watch the article and talk page and let us know what you think. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
RE: Hippodrome of Berytus
Thanks for your notice. I have just restored the sources. Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I know I've left Wikipedia for a while now, but you'd probably get accepted for autoconfirmed if you put in for it. You have a good enough track record for sure. SpartaN (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I am absolutely sorry for having changed articles without giving the right citations. It is just the fact that I follow the Roman tradition and I do not like seeing misunderstood information. I shall never do that again. Now I have found the references and I will add them. I am definitely sorry for having caused problems. Henceforth, I swear to Jove that I shall be acting in a constructive manner, as well as always giving references for everything I do. Whenever advice is given to me, I will take it seriously. Pray do not accuse me of vandalism and forgive me. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, please don't change the "History" section for now as I'm still making titles and may moved subsections again (you could waste your time). For example, I'm not satisfied with "Wars against Italian neighbours" and will probably change it to better detail the Samnite Wars. I'll tell you when I think I'm done with it (soon).T8612 (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I intend to replace the head with this text, as I feel the current one goes too much into details of the social/political structure, whilst a broader introduction is perhaps preferable. I think it's better to mention Hannibal and Pompey, as well as a rapid chronological time-frame, rather than the Mos Maiorum, voting rights, or patronage. Tell me what you think (correct it if needed). There is still room for a fourth paragraph on the political system and culture though.:
- Unlike the Pax Romana of the Roman Empire, the Republic was in a state of quasi-perpetual war throughout its existence. Its first enemies were its Latin and Etruscan neighbours, as well as the Gauls, who even sacked the city in 387 BC. The Republic nonetheless demonstrated extreme resilience and always managed to overcome its losses, however catastrophic. After the Gallic Sack, Rome indeed conquered the whole Italian peninsula in a century, which turned the Republic into a major player in the Mediterranean. The Republic's greatest enemy was doubtless Carthage, against which it waged three wars. Its general Hannibal famously invaded Italy by crossing the Alps and inflicted Rome two devastating defeats at the Lake Trasimene and Cannae, but the Republic once again recovered and won the war thanks to Scipio Africanus at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC. Carthage defeated, Rome became the dominant power of the ancient world. It then embarked in a long series of difficult conquests, after having notably defeated Philip V and Perseus of Macedon, Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire, the Lusitanian Viriathis, the great Pontic king Mithridates VI, the Gaul Vercingetorix, and the Egyptian queen Cleopatra.
- At home, the Republic similarly experienced a long streak of social and political crises, which ended in several bloody civil wars. At first, the Conflict of the Orders opposed the patricians, the closed oligarchic elite, to the far more numerous plebs, who finally achieved political equality in several steps during the 4th century BC. Later, the vast conquests of the Republic disrupted its society, as the immense influx of slaves enriched the aristocracy, but ruined the peasantry and urban workers. In order to solve this issue, several social reformers, known as the Populares, tried to pass agrarian laws, but the Gracchi brothers, Saturninus, or Clodius Pulcher, were all murdered by their opponents: the Optimates, keepers of the traditional aristocratic order. Mass slavery also caused three Servile Wars; the last of them was lead by Spartacus, a skilful gladiator who ravaged Italy and left Rome powerless until his defeat in 71 BC. In this context, the last decades of the Republic were marked by the rise of great generals, who exploited their military conquests and the factional situation in Rome to gain control of the political system. Marius (between 105-86), then Sulla (between 82-78) dominated in turn the Republic; both used extraordinary powers to murder their opponents. These multiple tensions lead to a series of civil wars; the first between the two generals Julius Caesar and Pompey. Despite his victory and appointment as dictator for life, Caesar was murdered in 44. Caesar's heir Octavian and and lieutenant Mark Antony defeated Caesar's murderers Brutus and Cassius in 42, but then turned against each other. The final defeat of Mark Antony and his ally Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, and the Senate's grant of extraordinary powers to Octavian as Augustus in 27 BC, effectively making him the first Roman emperor, thus ended the Republic.T8612 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, T8612. Thanks for passing this by me; what you've written reads very well, and seems to cover the basics of this very complex topic in sufficient detail. Most readers probably get no further than the introduction, so please, just go ahead as you see fit (the current introducton was thrown together, more or less, and is nowhere near adequate). By the way, I've rather a lot going on over the next few weeks, including a house-move, and will only be able to edit sporadically, if at all. Your work on this is very much appreciated; I'll give it my full attention as soon as I'm able. Haploidavey (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)