Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

		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]

Hi, I've almost finished a rewrite of the page. Have you written anything yet? T8612 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not even started beyond putting in a few ILL requests for some background reading. If you're done already, then I suppose there's very little for me to do! Ifly6 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sabiha Gökçen 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Cicero, I recently changed the clause "where more of his writings survived than any other Latin author" to "where more of his writings survived than any other Latin author's." Within a few days, you changed it back. I'm writing to revisit that revision / reversion with you. Let's see whether I can win you over to my revision.

The question that the sentence at issue aims to answer is, Which was there more of? Cicero's surviving writings or any other Latin author's surviving writings?

The question that it actually answers, by contrast, is, Which was there more of? Cicero's surviving writings or any other Latin author?

The present locution's syntactic illogic might be easier to recognize if you substitute a specific Latin author for the hypothetical one. It would make sense to compare Cicero's surviving writings to, for example, Virgil's surviving writings, and to say which one's surviving writings outnumber the other's. But it makes no sense to compare Cicero's surviving writings to Virgil himself, or, as the locution you have restored does, to "any other Latin author."

Forgive me, but I enjoy this sort of thing. Just as you have a hankering to share your insight into ancient Rome (Bravo, by the way!), I get fidgety about incorrect grammar, syntax, and usage.

If I've persuaded you, please say so. I will then joyously restore my revision. But if I haven't persuaded you, I promise to shut up and go away. 2603:6010:100:6E85:20E2:4920:8804:978C (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Restore your revision. Ifly6 (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ifly6! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
★Trekker (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Merry Christmas and Io Saturnalia! Ifly6 (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tribal assembly, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Appius Claudius and Social war.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing and fixing the ISBN formatting on Roman Republic. —GoldRingChip 23:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've restored the changes I'd made, except that I tried to keep the ISBN formatting in the way suggested by {{Format ISBN}}. But I'm worried that my edit was insufficient. Does {{Cite book}} allow for {{Format ISBN}}? —GoldRingChip 00:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't capitalise the template names. Such edits are cruft and obscure more important edits. Similarly, please don't close up |ref={{harvid |CAH<sup>2</sup> 9 |1992}} }}, doing so makes the position of the closing brackets more difficult to read. No objections to changing |year= → |date= inasmuch as the template author seems to prefer the latter. Ifly6 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]