Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your contributions relating to the topic of Rome, commendable for both their quality and quantity. Avilich (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ifly6 (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, congrats on the GA for Catilinarian consp. Avilich (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ifly6 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For bringing Catilinarian conspiracy to GA, at long-last. Great work! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Here is the award you deserve for doing the most detailed GAN review by a new reviewer in the last month, in my view, at Talk:Battle of New Carthage/GA1. (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Scholarly Barnstar
		Thanks for your work on Marian reforms! Also, congratulations on another GA! Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your own combating problematic material on Carus' Sasanian campaign! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ifly6 (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 02:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME puts it, Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages. There are exclusions, particularly Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, but not many, and yes, this does make a blocked user's talk page a rather unworkable venue for explaining to third parties that the block's justified. NebY (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the posts on the relevant talk page first, but thanks for letting me know. I think that's a silly policy under these circumstances, though it definitely makes sense in terms of the normal operation of a talk page, but whatever. Ifly6 (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GenoV84. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Valentinian III in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Changing grammar from western empire to Western Roman Empire to the wikilink Fall of the Western Roman Empire in an article about a Western Roman Emperor is definitely not out of place, and it doesn't seem like an error to me... Quite the opposite. Do you have an explanation for reverting the improvement that I made? GenoV84 (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You capitalised short in {{short description}}, moved "ongoing" into the link, and replaced western empire with Western Roman Empire. No new link was added. Links should take on smaller portions rather than unnecessarily long ones; it is obvious from context what the western empire is and it is commonly referred to that way in the scholarship. These changes were not improvements. Ifly6 (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. That's just your opinion, and I have no reason to believe it, because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. My contributions to the article Valentinian III are consistent with policy, guidelines, the encyclopedic nature and the good of Wikipedia.

Next time, remember to avoid the reflex action of ignoring or reverting other users' edits without a valid argument if there is an opportunity to collaborate and have a reasonable, civil discussion. Have a nice day 😊 GenoV84 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from making cosmetic edits that do not add any value to the encyclopaedia and justifying them with false pretexts like fixed grammar. Have a nice day 😊. Ifly6 (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar has been fixed and we both know that your revert was not an improvement, obviously. Get over it. 😁 GenoV84 (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just asserting that your edit is an improvement is not an argument. The assertion that grammar was fixed is a transparent falsehood since "the western empire" is standard terminology in the scholarship. An honest person would concede that edit summary is a sham. Whinging about it on my talk page and saying get over it even though I've not gone back to revert your revert is some of the behaviour of all time. Ifly6 (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 15:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your diligence, scholastic excellence in citing top-tier sources, and tireless contributions to various classical history articles, including those for Augustus and the so-called 'first' triumvirate, it is my pleasure to award thee with this most shiny of medals, the fabulously gilded, and may I say quite prestigious Barnstar of Diligence, which you may wear with great pride (if you so desire). Three cheers, and bravo! Pericles of AthensTalk 03:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ifly6 (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this edit to Curia you added sfn and harvnb references to "Richardson 1992". Unfortunately no such source is listed in the article. This means that nobody can look up the references, and also that the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply yhe missing source it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ifly6 (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish everyone was as quick as you! Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 14:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this edit this evening and had a look. There are indeed a lot of citations for Lucius Munatius Plancus, mainly because he's mentioned in a lot of different sources. But the tag text says (when you hover over it): "this claim has too many footnotes for reading to be smooth". That's the basic rationale for this tag, but it's probably not the case here, because each entry in the list is on a separate line (though the detailed ones do wrap once or twice). This concern seems less significant when the citations don't interrupt the flow of text in a paragraph.

I considered trying to bundle the citations, either manually or using a bundling template. But which ones would go together? Caesar, Cicero, and Plutarch? Prosopographia Imperii Romani and Magistrates of the Roman Republic? That doesn't seem to make sense. I suppose I could bundle them all into one giant reference, but I'm not sure that would be any more helpful to readers, and it would be inconsistent with the format used elsewhere, which is usually one reference per author (with multiple works of an author already combined into a single reference).

I didn't want to do an exhaustive study of each source or try to prune out what seem to me to be the least important ones, like Velleius Paterculus (since most of the history will be covered in more detail by others) or Horace (cited for a literary appearance). Though if that's the only logical way to do it, then that may be the result. I'd probably make sure they're all cited in Plancus' own article, where they could be separated by relevance to different things; in gens articles, I've always grouped all references at the end of each entry—in part to maximize readability, which of course is the issue here. But before I go to that level of trouble, how important is the number of citations really, when each entry is a separate line to begin with? P Aculeius (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]