Jump to content

User talk:UndercoverClassicist/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, UndercoverClassicist, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 19:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Emily Hauser

Hello @UndercoverClassicist - thanks so much for starting the page on Emily Hauser. I dropped by and made a couple of changes and/or indicated where further supporting evidence is required. Just a point on referencing - you can pick repeat references - if you click cite, then look along from where you drop the URL in, you can select Repeat, which gives you a drop-down menu for all the sources already used. Including reviews of Hauser's work would be another way to really improve the article. Happy editing! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi - thanks, that's really useful. I've gone and put citations where you (I assume?) put the [citation needed] notices. Got to be honest, the nuts-and-bolts of the wikitext for different footnotes, reference systems and so on is a bit of a mystery to me...

On the subject of reviews - what's the form there as to what to include? Presumably the article shouldn't look like an advertisement or the bottom of the back cover... is there a good example on another article? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Smile emoji Hi UndercoverClassicist! Thank you for your edits to Draft:Lex Pompeia de ambitu. It looks like you've copied or moved text from First Triumvirate into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - to be honest, I'm meaning to come back and re-work that part of the article anyway, but good to know. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Aigeira

Hi UndercoverClassicist. Your rewrite of Aigeira has introduced a few no target errors. One is "Mackil 2004", but I'm guessing this should just be "Mackil 2014" - "Wandering Cities: Alternatives to Catastrophe in the Greek Polis". The other are current references [15] and [39], both related to "Austrian Academy of Sciences". They are missing the required disambiguation (a,b,c). Could you let me know which ones they are referring to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - fixed! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, the last reference in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods section still needs to be fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah: I'd written it as {{sfn|author|date=2021a}}. Now fixed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Emily Hauser for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"Antistia (Q518068)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Antistia (Q518068) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 19 § Antistia (Q518068) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Good article nominations

Hi UndercoverClassicist, thank you for your assistance in reviewing at WP:Good article nominations. When you pass a nomination, please remember to add it to the appropriate list of Wikipedia:Good articles. All steps that should be taken are listed at WP:GAN/I#PASS. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, CMD (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Panagiotis Kavvadias, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!!!

The Reviewer Barnstar
Reviewing GAs can be difficult and daunting. I most certainly didn't get it right the first time, nor the 50th time. Hope to see you around WP:GA more in the new year. Cheers, 🏵️Etrius 🏵️ ( Us) 03:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
That's very kind - thank you! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Chloe Duckworth

Thank you for taking the time to make a solid argument over at the AfD discussion for Chloe Duckworth, in both your initial and subsequent posts. It's appreciated! Sorry to take a minute to see my way to a notability argument for her. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I really appreciated that discussion - it's nice (and all too rare) to be able to disagree with someone online and to have such a reasonable and civil conversation.
As is often the case, I think the points you made were crucial to actually building a proper case: I wouldn't have gone looking for those extra reviews if you hadn't raised the question, and I think they're now a pretty important part of the overall justification. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate greatly how collegial Wikipedia generally is. I'll tell you that for a while, I made a bit of a hobby watching academic AfD discussions (watchlisting Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators). One can often improve articles coming through there greatly, and it can be pretty satisfying. I've been a bit less active lately, unfortunately -- limited time and uneven attention. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Antistia (wife of Pompey) for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Avilich (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tomb of Aegisthus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tomb of Aegisthus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Another editor has edited Tomb of Aegisthus. I am uncomfortable with an unassociated editor wading into an article and changing your (the Nominator's) contributions when you & I are in the middle of discussing it. I am going to change it back to your version and to let your contribution stand, per a discussion I was having elsewhere with an admin. It's a wonderful article, you've done an amazing job - I am a stickler for GA Reviews and like to make sure everything is "according to Hoyle" (lol and Wikipedia!). Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tomb of Aegisthus

The article Tomb of Aegisthus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tomb of Aegisthus for comments about the article, and Talk:Tomb of Aegisthus/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I placed the article in Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture#Architecture–Buildings because that is where I found the other 2 "Tomb" GAs (Harpy Tomb & Tomb of Tutankhamun). Tutankhamun is even Aegisthus' "neighbor" there in the "Buildings' sub-section...though "Aegisthus" does get alphabetical precedence. Shearonink (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks - I appreciate your time and your good nature over the referencing question. For what it's worth, I agree with you that it's getting outside the bounds of what a GA review can/should do, but there definitely is a question mark here: fundamentally, I think the 'problem' is that the discipline of Classics has a certain, long-established way of doing certain types of citation, which as far as I can see isn't (yet?) written down anywhere Wikipedia-specific. I must admit that I'm still not sure 100% how to 'translate' this one into the terms of Wiki policies, norms etc.
Is there a policy to the effect of 'if a discipline does something a certain way, and the article is about that discipline, do that' - a bit like the policy on using regional-specific varieties of English for articles related to those places?
Otherwise, I wonder if there would be any mileage in working with some Classically-aligned Wikiprojects to come up with guidelines for this site?
Thanks again - much appreciated, and I've learned a lot from this review. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
One thing I recommend is user scripts; good ones have some element of guideline baked into them. For sources, I am very fond of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck, which performs 16 different roles in checking sources to make sure they're all formatted correctly. It will basically diagnose issues and throw red text at you until the issue is fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks - that's definitely something to look at, and Shearonink gave me a good steer towards another to check Harvard references. The problem here is more agreeing on what an 'issue' is - specifically, here, how Classical sources should be cited in articles. The principles in question are things like:
  • Classical texts should be cited in a footnote, as Author, Title, x.y
  • Generally, you don't put those texts into the bibliography, unless you're particularly concerned with a specific edition, translation, etc.
  • Generally, you cite the traditional line-section in the text, not the page number of the modern edition you happen to have.
Essentially, I wonder whether there's a policy called something like MOS:CITEANCIENT that's basically a Wikified version of a guide like this - and if there isn't, whether it's something that the community could put together. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I doubt it; perhaps on account of the general reluctance to insert primary references directly, and fact that most good secondary sources follow the formula; it shouldn't be too hard to put together an essay and have it proposed as a policy/guideline; although policy proposals are notoriously slow, from what I've seen. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, any policy on this is going to have to work under the umbrella of the overall primary source policy. I'll knock something together and see what people think. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Treasury of Atreus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pausanias.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Treasury of Atreus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pausanias.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Tomb of Aegisthus

On 23 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tomb of Aegisthus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Tomb of Aegisthus (pictured) helped to settle the 'Helladic Heresy' over the relationship between Minoan and Mycenaean civilisation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Aegisthus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tomb of Aegisthus), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde 00:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Marriages of Pompey the Great for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

NickKav

Hello again , i dont know if you've already read my answer but i would prefer an email correspondence. I also saw your contributions and since I have unlimited access to Museums and archeological data I could assist you of some way should you wish me too. Thank you Nick. NickKav (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
Congratulations on your work on Antistia (wife of Pompey) and Marriages of Pompey the Great. You remind me a bit of a football player who is also able to score a goal after he was fouled. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panagiotis Stamatakis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Panagiotis Stamatakis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mychemicalromanceisrealemo -- Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panagiotis Stamatakis

The article Panagiotis Stamatakis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Panagiotis Stamatakis for comments about the article, and Talk:Panagiotis Stamatakis/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mychemicalromanceisrealemo -- Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panagiotis Kavvadias

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Panagiotis Kavvadias you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Modussiccandi -- Modussiccandi (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panagiotis Kavvadias

The article Panagiotis Kavvadias you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Panagiotis Kavvadias for comments about the article, and Talk:Panagiotis Kavvadias/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Modussiccandi -- Modussiccandi (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Nabataean Aramaic

Thanks a lot for the timely and thorough GA review! שלם! Benji man (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, UndercoverClassicist. Thank you for your work on Adèle de Bellegarde. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Excellent job on the article. Very impressive.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 TT me 14:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: That's very kind, thank you! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of WikiProject Greece
For your high-quality and erudite work on Greek archaeology and archaeologists, a much-neglected topic until now, I award you with this token of appreciation! Thank you for your contributions! Constantine ✍ 13:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
That's very kind - thank you. I've got Panagiotis Kavvadias up for peer review at the moment; planning to put it forward for FAC once that concludes. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Aidonia chamber tombs

Hi UndercoverClassicist. Good job revising the article on Mycenaean chamber tombs, which I visited when I saw that you had used my photo of one of the tombs at Aidonia as the lead image. Unfortunately, I think you were misled by the file name into wrongly identifiying it in the caption as Aidonia tomb 2, which it is not. The number "02" in the filename File:Aidonia Mycenaean chamber tomb 02.jpg is not the tomb number; it's just a serial number marking this as the second of several photos of tombs at Aidonia (like writing "Apollo Belvedere 01," "Apollo Belvedere 02", etc.). In retrospect, I should have been more careful in naming the file: although I deliberately did not identify the tomb by number in the description on the image page at the Commons, I can see how easy it is to draw the wrong conclusion from the filename.

I don't actually know for a fact which tomb this is. The only time I visited Aidonia, over 30 years ago, the site was still something of a mess from the looting; the entrances of most of the tombs were covered with sheets of corrugated tin (cf. this photo), and there were no site plans or signs to indicate which tomb was which. I took a few quick shots of a couple of the tombs that were uncovered, and since prehistory is not really my field, I was never motivated to try to identify them more specifically. But the Commons user Schuppi has uploaded a whole bunch of images of Aidonia tombs and sorted them into categories by tomb number; assuming he is correct, the one in my photo should be tomb 10, as the slight eastward bulge in the dromos and the distinctive frame around the entrance to the stomion indicate. Compare his photo File:Aidonia-Tomb 10 3.JPG to mine, and I think you'll agree that they're the same tomb. I've revised the description of my own photo to add the tentative identification "tomb 10?" (with a question mark, since I prefer not to state as fact in my image descriptions anything that I can't vouch for myself), and I've moved it to the category for tomb 10. If you feel comfortable accepting his identification, you can change the caption in the article to "Chamber Tomb 10 at Aidonia"; otherwise, something nonspecific like "a chamber tomb at Aidonia" would do the job just as well for the purposes of the article.

Finally, although I'm gratified that you found my photo useful, I wonder if Schuppi's photo (linked above) would actually be a better choice for the article: it shows more of the dromos, and the lighting and focus are better. By contrast mine is a scan of a grainy 35mm slide taken on a cloudy day, with the aperture opened up pretty wide and a relatively compressed depth of field, and I failed to focus on the back wall, as I should have. (It was a lot harder getting good photos in the days before digital cameras, when you couldn't check to see what had gone wrong and then try again until you got a result you liked!) But I'll let you make the call on which photo works best and how to revise the caption.

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up - you are completely right that I had confused the serial number for the tomb number.
I've gone for a halfway-house approach: as you suggested, I've put in Schuppi's picture as the main image, with the correct caption, but also added a gallery in which I've put, inter alia, the original one you took at Aidonia.
I appreciate your username, by the way - good to see another Classics teacher on here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, UndercoverClassicist. Thank you for your work on Beulé Gate. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for creating this article! I encourage you to create more articles! Have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That's very kind, thank you! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Panagiotis Kavvadias, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Whitley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Unsuccessful autopatrolled nomination

Hi UndercoverClassicist, I nominated you for autopatrolled but only evaluated the quality of your articles and not the number. Your articles are interesting and well expanded, a review of your articles is probably mostly a formality, so the decline of my nomination does not concern you but is my "fault". We'll give it a try again when you reached 25 articles, if you want. Happy editing.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - I saw that; very flattered, but looking at the page there, it seems as though it's simply a matter of how the system works - no harm done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Panagiotis Kavvadias

On 25 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Panagiotis Kavvadias, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Panagiotis Kavvadias boasted that he had excavated the Acropolis of Athens so thoroughly that "not the slightest quantity of soil ... [had] not been investigated"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Panagiotis Kavvadias. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Panagiotis Kavvadias), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Panagiotis Stamatakis

On 14 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Panagiotis Stamatakis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Panagiotis Stamatakis and Heinrich Schliemann quarrelled so much during their excavations at Mycenae that they spoke only through intermediaries? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Panagiotis Stamatakis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Panagiotis Stamatakis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

March songs
my story today

Thank you for the interesting GA, - also featured on Portal:Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

sharing impressions from vacation on Madeira 20-30 March, pics now at 24 Mar from the peaks - thank you for the next, below! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Tomb of the Haterii

Hello again. I was astonished to see that the Commons had no images, even bad ones, of the crane relief from the Tomb of the Haterii. Your article is nicely done, but it definitely needs an image of the crane relief, which I suspect is even more well known than the monument relief. It is a source of great frustration to me that every single time I have been to the Vatican Museum in the last 20 years, the Museo Gregorio Profano has been closed. EVERY TIME. I did, however, manage to dig up this black-and-white photo published in 1908 and now PD; it's not great, but it's adequate, so I uploaded it to the Commons for you. Where in the article to put it is a different question, and the spacing may be a challenge, since you chose to discuss the relief in the section on the tomb rather than the section on the artworks. But I'll leave it to you to figure out how you want to move the furniture around.

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a good find: you're right that it's not immediately obvious where that image should go in the current setup, but it definitely should go somewhere. I'll have a look at the whole article when I get a moment: some more substantial rearrangement is probably the way forward. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I suppose it would be uncharitable to suggest that photos of both busts may not be necessary, but that would certainly be one way of freeing up some space. In any case, it might be a good idea to tweak the wording of the bust captions to indicate that these are plaster casts, not the originals. Choliamb (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Good spot - I've done that. Took the opportunity/excuse to expand the article a bit, which I think now justifies the extra images. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Front page

When Panagiotis Kavvadias appears on the front page as Today's Featured Article it will receive the unwelcome attention that TFAs always do – from well-meaning ninnies and horrible schoolchildren. Permit me to pass on the advice my Wikipedia mentor – now alas dead and still sorely missed – gave me many years ago: ignore the whole thing until the following day, when the caravan has moved on, the article is no longer on the front page, and the ninnies and vandals have a new TFA to mess about. Then you can go in and clear up the Panagiotis Kavvadias article at your leisure. While an article is on the front page, several stalwart editors will keep an eye on it, reverting the more obvious vandalism; all you need do next day is see if there are any justified changes remaining that you are happy to keep. Following this advice has spared me much angst over the years. – Tim riley talk 11:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition

The article University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition and Talk:University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations

The Special Barnstar
Your hard work has paid off and Kavvadias will soon be a Featured Article! The first one is always special and I hope you enjoy the accomplishment. Thank you particularly for contributing high-quality content about the Classics. I love to see representation of our great field grow on here. I hope we'll get a chance to collaborate again in the future. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
That is extremely kind - thank you. Thank you also for all your help with getting the article over the line, at several stages of the process. Likewise: it's been an education, and good fun as well. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Panagiotis Kavvadias

Congratulations, UndercoverClassicist! The article you nominated, Panagiotis Kavvadias, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
April songs
my story today

Congratulations - reviewing was a pleasure! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

When would you like "him" to appear on the Main page? The first choice coming to my mind would be 14 May, his birthday, but that means waiting for a year, or talking to the delegates about replacing a painting that seems not date-related, Marriage License (which rather looks like a good choice for 11 June). Other options: any day soon, or a day important in his life that I don't know but you may. I don't like day of death, but that may be just me. I can help you nominating if you don't want to do it yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, congratulations on that, a nice piece of work. I'm afraid that May is finalised - barring emergencies. Pinging Wehwalt to see if it could be squeezed into June (11th). Gog the Mild (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
There's a few dates that could work:
20 July: anniversary of death
5 August: Law 2646/1899 (perhaps most significant achievement)
22 November: outbreak of the 'Kavvadias Affair' that led to his dismissal
23 November: first excavation on the Acropolis
28 March: first excavations (Epidaurus)
On the other hand, since none of these (apart from birth and death date) are all that significant, simply putting it in where it fits might be a good option? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll place it under no specific date then. Gog the Mild, it seems that you misunderstood me: I believe the painting now scheduled for his birthday, 14 May, would be better on 11 June, mentioned in the first sentence of the lead. But ignore me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
More than happy to debate that Gerda, but it needs discussing at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2023. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I nominated unspecific date, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Panagiotis Kavvadias, the birth date not being a date he or anybody else would have celebrated, as he was born before Gregorian was introduced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I can squeeze it on 11 June. Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
That's nice! - Today is the 80th birthday of John Eliot Gardiner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kyriakos Pittakis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kyriakos Pittakis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition

The article University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition for comments about the article, and Talk:University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kyriakos Pittakis

The article Kyriakos Pittakis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kyriakos Pittakis for comments about the article, and Talk:Kyriakos Pittakis/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you be interested in doing GA reviews, by the way? You're an outstanding writer and the article was one of the best I've seen at GA, so I'm sure you'd be a very good reviewer -- and there's always a backlog there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I've done a couple (about 8, if memory serves): it's about time I did some more, to be honest. I noticed that you've been using (and running) ChristieBot, which seems to make things a little more streamlined; is there a straightforward way for someone else (me) to make use of it as well? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
That's right; it is indeed 8 -- I just looked at the stats page to check. I mis-remembered -- I've been doing reviews of nominators who have not reviewed recently, and I thought you were one of those, but in fact you've done more than your share. Still, there's always more to do. Re ChristieBot, it does the background updates but there's no need for any individual reviewer or nominator to know anything about it. However, there is a GA reviewing automation script here that recently became available. I don't use it (yet) myself but I gather it does simplify the process. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
OK - so if I start a review, for example, will ChristieBot already automatically tell the nominator that I've done so (that is, post a message rather like this one)? Or do I need to ask it specifically? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it is (or should be) completely automatic. If you click on the "Start review" link, either on WP:GAN or the talk page of the article, and save your review there, ChristieBot will notice and do what's necessary. The bot runs every twenty minutes. There are instructions at WP:GAN/I which also tell you how to complete the review when you're ready. I don't know how long it is since you last reviewed an article, but one fairly recent change is that reviewers are now suppose to spotcheck the citations for source-text integrity. You saw in my review how I did it, but any format is fine. I do a minimum of three; more if anything makes me suspect there might be problems, and sometimes more for a longer article. There's no set minimum officially but I wouldn't check less than three. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Kyriakos Pittakis

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kyriakos Pittakis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ludwig Ross

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ludwig Ross you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ludwig Ross

The article Ludwig Ross you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ludwig Ross for comments about the article, and Talk:Ludwig Ross/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Question from Flaviamarisa (23:14, 1 May 2023)

Hi, I would like to add a page on an Artist doing a lot of success and well known but not ye on Wikipedia, can you help me? --Flaviamarisa (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! If you're thinking of writing an article, I'd suggest having a look at this page, which gives you an excellent guide on how to get started. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Seleucid Empire had a Greek Hellenic democracy (a bit different from American liberal democracy)

CTRL+F 'democra' https://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles/hel-ion-eurconfed.htm will give you:

The form of government was some combination of democracy and oligarchy, whereby all adult male citizens had full political rights, including the eligibility for office, but in fact the offices tended to be in the hands of the wealthy more often than not. TruckDealer (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You've misread, I'm afraid: the context of that quote is important. Emphasis mine:

When possible, the anchor of these local liberties was to be found in the principle of respect for the ancestral laws of each city, but it was extended beyond this because the age was one of the foundation of new cities for which constitutions were written and which were given the same autonomy as the old, established ones, ... To the extent that cities were founded and refounded, they acquired constitutions and had contractual elements in them, but no theory of political compact developed as a result. The form of government was some combination of democracy and oligarchy, whereby all adult male citizens had full political rights, including the eligibility for office, but in fact the offices tended to be in the hands of the wealthy more often than not.

The article is talking about the local laws of the individual cities within the Seleucid Empire, which were set within those cities themselves; it is not making any claims about the government of that empire as a whole. The Seleucid Empire was, well, an empire: the king owed his position either to birthright or their own ability to gain it by force. There was never any sort of election to appoint a ruler of the Seleucid Empire.
Moreover, the article you cite is not peer-reviewed, and is written by a specialist in American political history. Arguing that the Seleucid Empire was a democracy would contradict the overwhelming consensus of high-quality reliable sources, so our verifiability policy requires sources of exceptional quality to support such exceptional claims. I'm afraid this source isn't one of those, and that this is a good reminder of the problems of relying too closely on a single quotation from a single source, at the expense of an overall grasp of the scholarship and sources on a topic. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
On reflection, the page as it currently stands is really a dictionary definition: the 1900 source cited doesn't discuss the concept of a democratic empire in any depth (it's a general reflection/musing on the history of empires, and the alleged fact that the British Empire and the US of 1900 were both democratic and empires), and doesn't meet WP:HQRS. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but I don't see that this page is anything more than a definition and an example of the use of that term. I've nominated it for deletion on that basis; the deletion page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic empire. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
You need to take your own advice and read the whole article, it will become clearer and support the statement that it was a DEMOCRACY:
"This treaty became the basis for the post-Alexandrian empire in Ionia and Asia Minor, whereby the empire formally continued to be a LEAGUE of CITIES, now with one imperial ruler, while the cities kept their LOCAL AUTONOMY and their right to create regional confederations within the imperial domain. This and other treaties essentially relied upon the traditional COMMUNAL LIBERTIES of each CITY to determine its precise status within the overall imperium."
Your argument is thus full of cognitive dissonance and void of reading comprehension.
TruckDealer (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The word formally is doing a lot of work there (as is, earlier in that sentence, the word in theory): the official propaganda of the empire may well have presented the affiliation between its constituent cities as free, voluntary and equal, but that's not an accurate representation of how things really were. Good comparisons would be the Roman Empire, for example, where Nero does much the same thing with Greece, declaring it free in theory while in practice maintaining it as very much under imperial control, or Athens' Delian League (an alliance of equals, who might just be massacred if they try to leave) or indeed more modern examples like the Soviet Union (a free, voluntary union of republics, provided that none of them seek to go elsewhere) or indeed the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. After all, it's hard to explain the Seleucid reaction to the Maccabean Revolt, or Antiochus III's many campaigns against breakaway subjects, if the Seleucids enshrined their subject peoples' right to self-determination.
More to the point, a single, self-published website by a scholar in a different field simply isn't a good enough source to base an entire thesis of how a much-studied empire worked. WP:HQRS and WP:EXTRAORDINARY still apply. Have you found any published, academic sources saying the same thing? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Bruh, with your mental gymanistics there is no country on this planet that would qualify as a democracy. Democracy of the ancient world was very different from the current Western European interpretation. The Seleucids,the Romans (and the Roman Empire) all practiced the democracies of their time, which then inspired the modern Western Empires. FULL STOP. TruckDealer (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Referencing

Hi, I saw your query on the GA Nominations' Page. It might assist you to see an example of a recently assessed (and successful) GA that uses a very straightforward referencing style without a biography: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_O%27Malley

In summary, I give the full reference on first occurrence, thereafter a short form is used. If an author has more than one major work, then a short title is added before the page number.

If this useful, all the better. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - the article in question had a slightly different issue (that it did have a bibliography, but was inconsistent about which sources were included in it), but always good to see examples of good work done in different ways. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panagiotis Efstratiadis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Panagiotis Efstratiadis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
For your excellent and thorough GA review of Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki. Thanks again and I hope we will be able to work together in the future. Ppt91talk 15:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
That's very kind; thank you. I enjoyed working with you and am hugely impressed with where the article has ended up; it was a fascinating subject. Thank you also for the interesting conversation on the various tangentially-related topics that cropped up; best of luck with your research into those, and I would love to read the results when they become available. Do feel free to let me know if you have other similar articles coming into GA or FAC. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Content no longer exists

[1] What? Can you explain what you mean? jps (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Information icon Hello, I'm ජපස. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2007 Alderney UFO sighting seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I reverted here because I consider your reintroduction of WP:PROFRINGE material to be an abrogation of core policy. jps (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kyriakos Pittakis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bavarian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI

I respectfully suggest that you drop the stick and withdraw this complaint. The sooner the better. What you describe is not chronic, intractable behavioral problems, but good faith attempts to prevent the promotion, in Wikipedia's voice, of sensational, pro-fringe content. Indeed, if anyone is engaged in tendentious editing there, it is you, with your ANI posting coming across as an attempt to silence an "opponent" in a content dispute. Please let it go. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

unlucky with the block

Hi UR,

I think you are right in this case, there has been some very bad editing there. But before taking anything to ANI, you need to take into consideration that wikipedia is first and foremost a venue of social interaction. If a user has been here for a long time, is part of a group which tends to edit on the same topics and frequents non-article spaces a lot, they are going to get a lot of automatic support. You need a pretty water tight case to get anything out of that.

All the best Boynamedsue (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words: you may be right. All a learning experience! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Page block

You have been page-blocked for a month from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Alderney UFO sighting for bludgeoning the discussion. See my comment on ANI for details. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC).

That's fair: I hadn't previously read WP:BLUDGEONING, and didn't know that part of AfD etiquette, but can see that it applies here. In partial mitigation, I had read the advice for how to participate on the AfD page, and the page linked from there, and did my best to follow that advice: I didn't see any suggestions about whether or how frequently to reply to others' posts. Should some mention of it be added to one or both of those pages? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I take your point, but in my opinion it shouldn't be added, no, as AFD is already suffering from instruction creep. In the end, we can't guard against everything, there will always be a residue where people simply need to use their judgment. Bishonen | tålk 11:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC).
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

UndercoverClassicist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The AfD to which this block relates is now closed: as above, I'm happy that this one is a fair cop: I didn't know the relevant point of etiquette, but as the newcomer to this site it's on me to learn its norms and rules, and will act on that one in future discussions. However, given that the block no longer serves any preventative purpose, I'd quite like to remove the dotted underline on my username and to have my Wikipedia Library access reinstated. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

OK. Of course I set the block to a month somewhat at random. No need for it any longer. Bishonen | tålk 19:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, UndercoverClassicist. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ppt91talk 18:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from Brizzle1996 on CYP2D6 (00:07, 29 May 2023)

Hey, there is a quite serious error on the page about CYP450 enzyme CYP2D6, which claims O-Desmethyltramadol (whose + and - enantiomers form the research chemical and active metabolite of Tramadol) is a substrate of CYP2D6, and bioactivated by it (turned into a stronger substance than its parent compound, in this case O-DSMT) into O,N-Didesmethyltramadol.

However, whoever wrote the parts on Tramadol and its metabolites must have mixed up Tramadol, which IS bioactivated by CYP2D6 into O-Desmethyltramadol, with O-Desmethyltramadol, which ISN'T. It's metabolized and turned into the less active O,N-Didesmethyltramadol by CYP2B6 (Not D, but B!).

It's a seriously dangerous mistake that could lead to ODs, hospitalizations, and even death, because people might use the current incorrect information and as a result co-administrate a CYP2B6 inducer or inhibitor. While inducers will lead to a shorter and lesser effect of the O-DSMT, inhibitors will result in decreased metabolic clearance of O-DSMT, meaning AUC levels (definite integral of blood plasma drug-concentration as a function of time) that range from 1,25 to 5+ times as high as normal, which means a drug effect way stronger than desired/intended, and potentially toxic concentrations of O-DSMT in the blood. Finally this effect, and the drug half-life, is also much longer.

The source used for this info seems to be from (24), but it isn't accessible, nor is its abstract even relevant to the topic.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Tramadol-and-desmetramadol-metabolism-catalyzed-by-CYPs-in-vitro_fig4_332520213

I could give you more sources. One reason O-DSMT is studied because Tramadol becomes bioactive only after metabolization by CYP2D6; O-DSMT avoids CYP2D6, and therefore people with poor CYP2D6 metabolism have an alternative

I don't know how exactly how to edit, and when I've done so in the distant past, it got removed, so I thought I'd message someone who might know more/be more capable. --Brizzle1996 (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello - not really my area, unfortunately, so you'd be better off speaking to someone who knows more about medical sources and articles. However, primary sources (like individual studies) can't be used for medical claims: if you do decide that you want to bring this material in, you'll need to make sure that it's cited to something secondary (that is, a source like a textbook or review article, which comments on other people's studies). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! I didn't know that about primary sources for medical claims. It makes sense though. Though for the edit on CYP2D6 I only had to remove, and not add, anything, so. The source used for tramadol and codeine is rather odd though, since it links a page with an abstract about pediatric pharmacogenetics. Don't see how that would be a source for opioid metabolism, but I don't have access so.. Anyway, thanks :p! Brizzle1996 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Passing Mother's Grave

Rirst thank you for the review. I have a technical question. I see that the article passed, but it is not marked on the top of the article and it did not show up in my list. I was not sure if a step was missed or there is a bot that finishes. Thank you very much. Bruxton (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think there's two bots involved: the one that passes the nomination seems to have worked correctly, since I can see it on this page, but there's a second bot (ChristieBot) that puts the little icon in the corner. I've sometimes had that take a day or so: you might want to send the bot (really, User:Mike Christie) a message if it doesn't do its thing soon. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Bruxton (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from SmartMoneyfortheladies (05:29, 1 June 2023)

How do I make my own Wiki page? --SmartMoneyfortheladies (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @SmartMoneyfortheladies: As in, an article about yourself, or a user page? You can't create the former yourself (since you would obviously have a COI about yourself), although you can submit it through WP:AfC (well, any article you create has to go through AfC for a bit). To create a user page, just click on your username in your signature or at the top menu. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panagiotis Efstratiadis

The article Panagiotis Efstratiadis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Panagiotis Efstratiadis and Talk:Panagiotis Efstratiadis/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ian Heslop

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ian Heslop you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panagiotis Efstratiadis

The article Panagiotis Efstratiadis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Panagiotis Efstratiadis for comments about the article, and Talk:Panagiotis Efstratiadis/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Jfef1966 (00:02, 17 June 2023)

I need to create a article, how do I do that? --Jfef1966 (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I've sent you a message on your Talk Page with some useful links. In general, it's best to get started by making edits to existing pages, to help you get a feel for how the site works, but you'll also find a link to a page on writing your first article when you're ready for that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition

On 20 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition has been described as "the first truly multidisciplinary archaeological expedition in Greece"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beulé Gate

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beulé Gate you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ppt91 -- Ppt91 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Dando

Many thanks for your comments at FAC on top of the work you did at GAN; it was all much appreciated.

I wonder if you would have any time to look at the Private Case at some point? It will be my next nomination at FAC and went through a PR some time ago, but I’d be delighted to hear any further comments or thoughts you may have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Certainly - I've given it a read and a copyedit (mostly but not entirely uncontroversial, I hope). You really do have a knack for these wonderful articles on topics which would so easily slip under the radar in other media. Most of my points at FAC would be fairly minor grammatical nit-picks: a couple that stuck out:
  • A thought: in modern times, Brighton is very well known as a countercultural centre, particularly for the LGBT+ community. Was this true at the time, and if so, is it anything more than a coincidence that a police raid took place there and found 'obscene' publications? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  • There's nothing in the sources I have to hand that gives any other information that suggests it was a perennial problem in Brighton (or at least no more than anywhere else outside Soho). - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  • You might want to have a look at the second paragraph in "background": it seems to move back and forth between the past and present ("Certain digital material is also collected ... the books they receive include ... works that were potentially libellous. Such works were accepted by the library, but some were not released into their general access collections or details of them placed on the publicly accessible catalogue").
  • I'll go over that all again - it's possibly a jar between the historical and the current, but my brain ended up going round in circles and I'm sure I've probably made some errors along the way. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  • "Pornographic publishers such as William Dugdale never sent their works to the library, which meant they had to be acquired by the library later": the grammar here implies all pornographic publishers, but it sounds as though what's intended is that Dugdale and some other pornographers were (somewhat) unusual in not sending their work. Does "later" mean simply "by private purchase"?
  • I love the list of early works in the Case: is there a logic to the order in which they're presented? One of the names is flagged up as pseudonymous: I think it might help to say something before introducing the list that most of these names are probably the same. There's another similar list later on, where the same ordering question arises.
  • No, no logic at all
  • I might regret asking, but what exactly is a "phallicism collection"?
  • Who was Charles Reginald Dawes? More generally, I wonder whether some of the (many) characters in this article might deserve a redlink?
  • None of them have DNB entries (which would make things easier), but I think Dawes possibly does. Not sure about the others, but I'll look at them all when I go through it to do the above work - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
That's hugely kind of you - thanks very much! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Do let me know when this comes up at FAC: I'd certainly be in support at the moment and more than happy to do a more thorough review. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beulé Gate

The article Beulé Gate you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Beulé Gate and Talk:Beulé Gate/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ppt91 -- Ppt91 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Great article!

I read today's FAC with great interest, and I see that you were largely responsible. Nice work, and thank you for your contributions! —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That's very kind; thank you! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
June songs
my story today
Same! Thank you today for Panagiotis Kavvadias, "about a Greek archaeologist - one of the most significant figures in the discipline in one of its most important periods. Kavvadias led the Greek Archaeological Service between 1885 and 1909, and was responsible for some of its most significant excavations of the 19th century as well as for completely transforming the way that antiquities and the practice of archaeology were handled in Greece. He was also notable for managing to so totally upset the Greek government and most of the rest of its archaeological establishment that he was eventually marched out of the country, with the official label of "dangerous reactionary"."! - I have Bernd Schroeder on the same page, - a modest contribution. Enjoy your first TFA day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Nonmetal FAC

UndercoverClassicist, now that Nonmetal (chemistry) failed FAC could you assist me to address your outstanding concerns regarding prose, clarity and MOS? Thank you, Sandbh. Sandbh (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Honestly, writing for clarity is a tricky business. I'd suggest trying to put yourself in the position of an interested but uninformed reader: would somebody with very little education in chemistry be able to understand a given sentence? If not, is there a particular word or technical term which could be glossed or rephrased, or useful context that could be added? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beulé Gate

The article Beulé Gate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Beulé Gate for comments about the article, and Talk:Beulé Gate/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ppt91 -- Ppt91 (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Kyriakos Pittakis

Congratulations, UndercoverClassicist! The article you nominated, Kyriakos Pittakis, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sappho

Huge thanks for your comprehensive comments at the peer review for Sappho! Super helpful – both the picking of prose nits and the more substantive content queries. I've dealt with a bunch of the easy ones; more to come once I have slept and been able to dig back into the sources. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - I was worried that the length of that list would come across as bashing the article, which is certainly not what I wanted to do: it's a fantastic piece of work and all the more impressive given how difficult it is to pin things down about Sappho. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Witnesses in the Nuremberg Trials has been nominated for renaming

Category:Witnesses in the Nuremberg Trials has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 14:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

BUCS/Universities Fullbore Championship

Hi, I've started Draft:BUCS Rifle Championships, which may be something you are interested in contributing to. In particular, on the fullbore side I'm unsure which match(es) at the Imperial is/are used for BUCS purposes (I'm guessing the Musketeers or the Universities Long Range, but neither the BUCS site nor NRA Handbook make this clear!). Based on your work on Rifle shooting at Cambridge University I suspect you know this side better than I (I've always been more on the smallbore side). Many Thanks! Hemmers (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi - it's both (they're added together). There's also a BUCS Individual, which is simply the Grand Aggregate. If you can find some reports from rifle clubs in university sports magazines, maybe they'll include that detail? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Beulé Gate

On 14 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beulé Gate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the excavation of the Beulé Gate, a dynamite explosion sent a piece of mortar through one onlooker's hat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beulé Gate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Beulé Gate), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping you have time and inclination for another review...

Hi UndercoverClassicist, Your recent reviews at FAC have been extremely detailed and very, very helpful. I have another article up at FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Florence Petty/archive1 - which I hope you will have some time to look at. No problems if you're tied up on other things! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you so much for yet another excellent and detailed review. I'm enjoying going through your comments! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ian Heslop

The article Ian Heslop you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ian Heslop for comments about the article, and Talk:Ian Heslop/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from Lillian Wilde (17:24, 26 July 2023)

Hi Undercover Classicist: Im struggling to figure out where to start a page. I know it seems obvious but it's not. But I am determined. Where do I begin? Article Wizard? AfC? I'm not having luck with the sandbox. Help! --Lillian Wilde (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lillian - yup, AfC is the best place to start. You can put together a draft there and get it reviewed by an experienced editor when it's ready: there are plenty of people (myself included) who would be able to help answer questions or help out as it develops. In general, the best way to learn how the system and software works is to make relatively small edits on existing articles, which you can do at the same time as writing a new one: from experience, it saves a lot of re-working when you realise that there's a better way of doing what you've already drafted out. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

In appreciation

The Reviewers Award The Reviewers Award
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this and your kind words: they are likewise very much appreciated. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent things

Hi @UndercoverClassicist! First, sincere congratulations on another FA. Very impressive work and I am so glad to know that your contributions getting the recognition they deserve. On an unrelated note, I saw the other day that the Wilanow Palace publication on David's Portrait of Stanislaw Kostka Potocki has been released in English. I imagine it might take some time before the book makes its way to U.S. libraries, but I look forward to getting a copy as soon as possible and incorporating the source (finally as a published study) into the article. :-) Ppt91talk 13:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That's very kind of you to say - looks like an interesting book, and I notice its authors already feature nicely in the article. It's still on my Watchlist, so I'll look forward to seeing how it all takes shape. Do you think they'll be able to shed any light on the painting's movements around 1945, which seemed to be a pretty murky area in research so far? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I am glad to hear it's still on your watchlist! I think the book might possibly have more answers, as the essay I've used so far is an excerpt (as helpful as it was). When the new content is in, I'll certainly be curious to hear your thoughts.
You know, it's funny you mention post-1945, because I am still engrossed in the late 1940s for my current dissertation chapter (which I finally hope to have ready by the end of July) and the David painting, though unrelated to my research, has been in the back of mind. Because the recovery and restitution program in early communist Poland were quite intense, with the nascent Soviet-aligned communist regime doing their best to cast the blame for all war-time destruction on the Nazis, one would think that a work of such art historical importance should be at the forefront of these restitution efforts. I think I may have mentioned to you the 1956 exhibition of French art at the National Museum in Warsaw titled from David to Cézanne and imagine contemporary press reviews might offer some more clues, but I am not sure when I'll be able to get to these.
The director of the museum Stanisław Lorentz is a fascinating figure in all of this; the way I see it, he essentially went along with the communists' exploitation of the institution for propagandistic purposes so that he could continue rebuilding the encyclopedic museum and fill the gaps in its collection. Speaking of which, I am not sure I ever told you about the Faras Gallery at MNW; much later than most of your research, of course, but still an extraordinary archeological initiative for a Soviet satellite state in the 1960s. Ppt91talk 14:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@UndercoverClassicist Finally got my hands on some more Polish sources (through multiple library requests) and here is what I managed to find out: the David portrait was stolen in December 1944 by a Wehrmacht unit and taken to Swidnica and later Germany; until 1952, there was no word about where the painting had been taken (in the meantime, several other works, including Lady with an Ermine, were returned); in 1952, the Soviets inform the Polish government (height of Stalinism) of a batch of recovered works from the Wilanow collection found in Germany as part of the Soviet restitution; in 1956, the Potocki portrait was officially returned to Warsaw during an event organized at the Hermitage in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg). It looks like we might never find out what happened between 1945-1952 or that it would necessitate access to Russian archives, which for obvious reasons will not be possible any time soon. But this seems satisfactory enough, I think. :-) Hope you're doing well! Ppt91talk 15:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Temple of Apollo Palatinus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Temple of Apollo Palatinus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have time and inclination...

Hi UC, I hope you’re keeping well. I have a PR open here on Edward Oxford, the first failed assassin of Queen Victoria. If you have the time, I’d be delighted to hear your thoughts. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course: I've put a few comments down and given the article a brief copyedit. I've just put Ludwig Ross forward for FAC here if you fancy jumping to the other side of the fence. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Temple of Apollo Palatinus

The article Temple of Apollo Palatinus you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Temple of Apollo Palatinus and Talk:Temple of Apollo Palatinus/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Temple of Apollo Palatinus

The article Temple of Apollo Palatinus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Temple of Apollo Palatinus for comments about the article, and Talk:Temple of Apollo Palatinus/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback before FAC

Hello! As the GA reviewer of the article Fuzuli (poet) and an author of an FA, I wanted to reach out to you before nominating this article for FA status. Since your review, I have expanded and improved the article to ensure it meets all FA criteria. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the article when you have time and provide any suggestions for further improvement. This may become my first FA, so your feedback would be valuable. Thank you! — Golden call me maybe? 22:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course - have you thought about nominating it for peer review? If nothing else, that would provide a convenient place on which to write such comments, and attract other editors who would be able to provide useful feedback. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I nominated it for peer review 9 days ago, but there haven't been any comments yet. Based on past experience, it's unlikely that I'll receive any comments there any time soon, but I still submitted it just in case. — Golden call me maybe? 13:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I've saved a space on that page. If you haven't already, it might be worth pinging other editors, particularly active FA reviewers or those who have previously written FAs on similar topics? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. That's a good idea. I'll see if I can find someone to ping. — Golden call me maybe? 14:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey, UndercoverClassicist. I hope everything is going well for you. I just wanted to make sure you didn't forget about the review. It has been over 10 days since your last comment, so I thought I'd reach out. — Golden call me maybe? 09:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I had indeed dropped that ball; thanks for the reminder. Comments now in. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
No problem! Thank you for the thorough review. I'll try to address all the points by Saturday. — Golden call me maybe? 14:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey UndercoverClassicist, I've nominated the article for FA (Link). If you have time, I would very much appreciate your thoughts on the nomination. — Golden talk 13:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I've seen it there - have been holding off a little to give others a chance to comment and so that I don't end up simply rerunning the GA/PR. Very happy to have another look and give it a review. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Projects tracking

I've created a subpage to make it easier for my colleagues and I to keep track of our projects that require reviews and comments. Feel free to add there anything that you would like reviewed or commented on, and it will appear on my user page. — Golden talk 15:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"Inline citations"

Regarding your comment about "inline citation, which is discouraged" in the ongoing PR, I'm was not sure what you meant by this. It's not really relevant to the PR as such so I thought I'd ask here directly instead. "Inline citation" seems to mean different things depending on context, so what exactly is it that you were trying to say is discouraged? Peter Isotalo 10:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It was about inline *parenthetical* citation - that is, giving the reference in brackets like (Smith 2021, p. 3) or "Smith (2021) says…". Instead, we should put the citation into a footnote. My link in that post goes into more detail. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC) UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
You mentioned this in the context of separating citations from commentary notes. Were you trying to explain that citations written directly in a commentary note is the equivalent of parenthetical notation? Peter Isotalo 15:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes: if you write a note that says "Elephants are big. Smith 2019, p. 2", that's simply a parenthetical citation without the parentheses. It's fairly common to do something like "For the size of elephants, see Smith 2019, p. 2", which gets around that problem another way (by making the 'citation' part of the prose). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Is this interpretation of "inline citation" something that's included in any guidelines? Peter Isotalo 06:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
It's WP:PAREN: the relevant RFC {here) goes into more detail that the point is to move citations out of the body text and into the footnotes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Miracle Samuel 07 on Help:Your first article (02:15, 17 August 2023)

Hello --Miracle Samuel 07 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Miracle Samuel 07 on Help:Your first article (02:16, 17 August 2023)

How can I create an article --Miracle Samuel 07 (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello - welcome to Wikipedia!
If you want to put an article together, the best place to start is the "Article Wizard" at this very useful page. You can write a draft there and get it reviewed by an experienced editor when it's ready: there are plenty of people (myself included) who would be able to help answer questions or help out as it develops.
Most people start by making relatively small edits on existing articles, which you can do at the same time as writing a new one: from experience, it saves a lot of re-working when you realise that there's a better way of doing what you've already drafted out. It's also the best way to pick up tips as to what good articles look like and how to make the Wiki markup do what you want it to.
Happy editing! UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Ludwig Ross

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ludwig Ross, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Haterii again

Hi there. I was in Munich last month and while visiting the Museum für Abgüsse Klassischer Bildwerke, which has a fabulous collection of plaster casts, I spotted a cast of the collocatio relief from the Tomb of the Haterii. So I took a few photos and uploaded them to the Commons, which has no decent image of the original relief. I've added one of these photos to article, and in order to accommodate it I've repositioned the other images. I've also made a few changes to the description of the relief. See what you think. Choliamb (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good - well spotted that those are actually plaster casts, which helps to solve a question-mark I had as to how they'd ended up in Russia. I moved the images around a bit for MOS:SANDWICH, but definitely a big improvement. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI on CLOP

Per out conversation at the Asimov's FAC, I've just started a conversation about in-text attribution here, in case you're interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out: I drafted a comment but I'm not sure I have too much to add at this point. Will watch with interest: in "real life" (or at least educational and professional academic contexts), attributions like the one you've set out there are completely fine, and I'd use them without a second thought, but equally as this is all about copyright and legality it's an area where I'm reluctant to go against the party line, particularly for aesthetic reasons. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from 1841wikidude (00:21, 26 August 2023)

How do I look up a movie? --1841wikidude (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could you give me a bit more context? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Ian Heslop

On 2 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ian Heslop, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that butterfly collector Ian Heslop was once required to supervise an execution? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ian Heslop. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ian Heslop), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

TFA for Kyriakos Pittakis

Does a TFA set for October 15 work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup: seems as good a day as any - thank you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Computer died

Thank you for your review. Unfortunately, my laptop just died so I won't be able to immediately work on the article right away. Hopefully I'll be back up and running soon, and I'll try to do some minor fixes with the mobile app 123Writer talk 22:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know: there is, of course, WP:NOHURRY, but please feel free to ping me if I forget to keep a sharp enough eye on the review. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Wekeeppedia on Valence (psychology) (20:11, 7 September 2023)

I am --Wekeeppedia (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Ludwig Ross

Congratulations, UndercoverClassicist! The article you nominated, Ludwig Ross, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Happy to see this. Congratulations! — Golden talk 18:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you - and thank you for helping it get there with your review and comments. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@UndercoverClassicist Congrats, another well-deserved recognition of your stellar work. :-) Ppt91talk 23:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Very kind of you to say so - thank you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Biard

On 11 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Henry Biard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that pilot Henry Biard made his first flight before taking his first flying lesson? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Biard. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Henry Biard), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Content Review Medal of Merit

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
Must have taken a long time to type. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from JESS GADDE 123 (00:40, 13 September 2023)

is magma the scientific name of lava --JESS GADDE 123 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from JESS GADDE 123 (00:42, 13 September 2023)

why chameleons change its color --JESS GADDE 123 (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Jupiter peer review

Thanks for the support. Do you think you could peer review Jupiter. LittleJerry (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure - I'm better on the god than the planet, but will give it a look. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Looking at this one, it seems from the FAR that the main issue is content: I'm very much not qualified to pronounce on astronomy or on what might be missing. From what I can see, the MoS is pretty good, though the Name and Etymology section could do with some tweaks: consistency with the rest of the article for words as words, remove abbreviations in flowing text, drop only and give a slightly better explanation of Zeus, which descends from a very ancient word for sky but doesn't really mean "sky father" in Greek in any real sense. Other than that, I'd be picking fairly small nits, which seems premature when major content changes are forthcoming; equally, I notice that the nominator has asked for the PR to be closed. Hope this is somewhat helpful and apologies that I can't give you much more. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Cool. Serendipodous? LittleJerry (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Astronomers from the German Empire

I believe you are 100% correct about the German Empire including many people who would not consider themselves German. The largest example in the Poles, especially those in Posen Province. You also mentioned the French. There were also some people in Schlewig-Holstein, especially the part that would be made part of Denmark after World War I that considered themselves Danish not German. There were also Sorbians in what is today Germany, who I think at the time were less likely to consider themselves German in the 19th-century than today. There were also some Lithuanians who lived in parts of the Kingdom of Prussia, especially up by Memel, which is today in Lithuania, but also some a little further west, and a few others scattered. The German identity was then becoming clearly distinct from the Austrian identity as well, so German Empire is a clearer term on multiple fronts for the time. Also, Hessian, Saxony, Bavarian and other sub-German entities had some meaning at the time when the German Empire was first formed. I think you make a very good point. It might be good if we could find a good example of someone from the German Empire who this applies to. In the writers category we have Jakub Bart-Ćišinski who is described in the article on him as "Sorbian" and not German.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Julian Glover (journalist)

Hallo, what was your edit intended to do? I nearly reverted it but then thought I might be missing something. Please illuminate. Thanks. PamD 07:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

When you mouse over a link to the page, there's an awkward double comma after the name where whatever system handles that has removed "OBE" but kept the parenthetical commas (it reads Julian Glover,, is an English journalist... The idea was to tell it to remove the commas as well, so that it would simply read Julian Glover is an English journalist. It doesn't seem to have worked, so please revert away and fix it you can. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
(talk page stalker): @UndercoverClassicist Looks like I was able to fix it? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Almost: I just removed the other comma, and now it works. Not sure what the MoS says but, to my eyes, Julian Glover OBE is a journalist is more correct than Julian Glover, OBE, is..., especially as we've only got one post-nominal. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
You’re right! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Taking up yet more of your time...

If you have some spare time between your superb reviews and superlative article writing,* Tim riley and I have been working on the article of the inestimable Dorothy L. Sayers, and have her up at PR, prior to an FAC nomination. We would both be delighted to attend to any comments you may have.

* That's an honest opinion of your standards and value and not meant as flattery!

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I've put a marker down and will make comments over the next few days. Obviously a lovely article in many respects: I suspect it'll take me a while to go through, and that most of my comments will be the usual pearl-clutches and nit-picks. If I could pass the buck the other way, I've got Temple of Apollo Palatinus up at FAC: Tim's already given it a look, but any further observations or comments would be gratefully received.
UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Don't worry - that's already on my watchlist and is next in line to do! - SchroCat (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I had forgotten that you'd put down a marker: I hope that didn't come across as pushy or rude. Thank you for your very swift review: it has tipped some previously either-way issues into a much more solid outcome. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Not at all - it's easy to forget a passing comment in the hurly burly of a review, particularly when you're doing several reviews and writing other articles! - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Temple of Apollo Palatinus

Congratulations, UndercoverClassicist! The article you nominated, Temple of Apollo Palatinus, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Ludwig Ross

Hi. In this case, it's not just "transliterating someone's name into their non-native language"; please, take a look at his own signature in the infobox that is in Greek, "Λ[ουδοβίκος] Ῥώς" (Loudoνikos Rhōs). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes - that's simply his name in Greek (and I'd note that he only signed with the first initial): Loudovikos is just the Greek for Ludwig. He also published giving his name in Latin as "Ludovicus Ross", as did practically every German academic in the period. The MoS doesn't advise us to give transliterations or trivial translations like that: we similarly don't give Wilhelm II, German Emperor as "William II", "Guilelmus II" "Guillaume II", even though all were used fairly widely during his lifetime. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Ι understand what you are saying, but in this particular case it's not just "a published" version, as with the Latin form. It's written by his own hand, and furthermore he uses the old fashioned type Ῥ (Greek letter), R with a "daseia" (not the simple Ρ [Greek letter for R) form, the rough breathing diacritical mark ῾, romanised with letters "h" (or "s", sometimes).Anyway, it's not that important for me. Regards. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks - you're right about the diacritic: you'll know more than me about this, but from reading "modern" Greek academic texts of the period (particularly by archaeologists), it seems to have been the norm to keep the classical orthography of rough breathings - and ρ always has a rough breathing in Ancient Greek when it's at the start of a word - circumflex accents and so on, even though these were practically long obsolete. You see a lot of "Rhangavis" or "Rhangabé" for Alexandros Rizos Rangavis, for example. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UndercoverClassicist/Archive_1&oldid=1187763049"