User talk:Caeciliusinhorto/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of weapons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	You almost single-handed fixed the article Women in Classical Athens. It is now well-written and well-cited. Thank you for your hard work. Tradereddy (talk ) 12:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Thermopylae may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the world|date=2007|publisher=Pan|location=London|isbn=9780330419185|page=231|edition=1. pbk. ed.}}</ref> missing key events in the battle such as the betrayal of Ephialtes, and the account of [[
• the world|date=2007|publisher=Pan|location=London|isbn=9780330419185|page=146|edition=1. pbk. ed.}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greek Anthology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rufinus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your

Women in Classical Athens

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

talk

) 21:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For talk ) 00:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Your

Women in Classical Athens

The article

talk

) 01:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Women in Classical Athens

On

never spoke his mother's name? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Women in Classical Athens. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Women in Classical Athens), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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

.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I share the love of Ancient Greece, and saw your request in the guild. You might want to mention more about the prostitutes being musicians. Also, Sheramy D. Bundrick's "Music and Image in Classical Athens" has a very interesting chapter on women appearing as musicians on vases for a time. Cake (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Microhistory page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

On 20 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tithonus poem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one of the few nearly-complete poems by the Greek lyric poet Sappho, preserved on a papyrus (pictured) from the third century BC, was published in 2004? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tithonus poem. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tithonus poem), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I was just wondering if you would be interested in reviewing another of mine and Worm That Turneds articles? Like Jeannie Mole, these two are also focused on the actions to promote have women's rights: Liverpool Women's Suffrage Society & Tessie Reynolds Don't worry if you can't - I know there are 101 other things for Wikipedians to do! ツStacey (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Staceydolxx: I am currently doing a GA review (Sea Peoples). When I have finished it, if neither of your articles are being reviewed I'll try to have a look at one of them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Someone has started the Liverpool society one but Tessie Reynolds is still waiting. Its only a short article but its has as much information as we could possibly find! Thanks again, ツStacey (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I can send you a full text pdf of:

• Cynthia Patterson (1986). "Hai Attikai: The Other Athenians". Helios. 13: 49–67.

in fulfilment of your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Patterson 1986, in Helios. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The article

I see I'm beating the irritatingly cheerful bot to it: these congratulations come from a real person. I'd like a little advice, please. I have to list the new GA in the appropriate part of the composite list of GAs, and I am uncertain whether to list it in the Ancient texts or the Poetry subsection. What think you? Tim riley talk 11:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Catalogue of women is also there. I don't think it matters overly much, though. Caeciliusinhorto (talk

) 12:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Done – thank you! Can we look forward to more such articles? I hope so. Ping me, by all means, if you lack a reviewer at any point. Tim riley talk 13:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are four more articles on Sappho poems which predate my presence on wikipedia, and one about a poem which may or may not be by Sappho... Look out for improvements to

The Brothers Poem... Caeciliusinhorto (talk

) 18:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Core Contest

	Equal Second Prize
	To Caeciliusinhorto, for work on Classics in the 2016 Core Contest. A voucher will be on its way soon.... Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on your win! Could you contact me at [email protected] with the email address you want your voucher to be sent to? Thank you, Karla Marte(WMUK) 14:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your nudges to the The Boat Races 2016 article. I hope you'll stick around and help me get it to FA status...! An aside, per your username, are you "recumbens"? It took me back a bit, then I discovered this nonsense. Cracked a smile at it.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: I did in fact find the article via the FAC page, and thought I'd give it a quick look over. If I have time soon I'll try to write up a little bit of more substantive commentary for you...

That video is terrifying – even more so than the fact that AO3 has a section for CLC fic. some of it even in dubious Latin... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

women in Classical Athens

Thank you for quality articles on "women's history, social history of ancient Greece, and the intersection between the two" such as

Women in Classical Athens, for copy-editing and GA reviews, for thoughtful edit summaries and substantiated support, - you are an awesome Wikipedian

!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! From such a prolific and longstanding editor, this means a lot. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Caeciliusinhorto, I've addressed your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rare Replay/archive1, if you'll take a look czar 06:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh great; I'll have a look tomorrow probably Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto, friendly ping, in case it slipped your radar czar 04:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Caeciliusinhorto, I hope everything is fine. I was wondering if you have the time.. could you take up(look at/review) the "Peer review" for Battle of the Bastards(Season 6, Episode 9 of Game of Thrones ("Spoiler alert if you have not seen the series")). I am trying to get this to a "Featured Artice".. (It has already been passed for "Good Article") and I need some one to review and tell me what to fix/do to make that happen.(Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Bastards/archive1) AffeL (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I've revamped the contest page into this, based on the new British model. Long term goal, but I've added entries since the beginning of July to give it some initial life. Please add anything you've done then this then too! I hope it proves productive long term. The contests are still planned, but will be more tools towards increasing bulk output in overall goal. It's a permanent goal now, and open! I would be grateful if you could keep a record of all your articles you do there, as I really think seeing the combined efforts will encourage others to create more content too! Please spread the word to the others, cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Caeciliusinhorto: I see that the History of Lesbianism article has a lack of images for later history, and am trying to add some images. I'm wondering why you just deleted the Toulouse Lautrec image of lesbian entertainer Cha-U-Ka-O that I added. I was in the middle of redoing the caption when the image disappeared. Let's discuss how we can add some later images to this article. Thank you ABF99 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@ABF99: ah, sorry about that. I couldn't work out what the relevance of the picture was, and misread when it had been added so I didn't realise that you might still be working on it. I agree with you that the article could do with some more images, especially in the later sections. That particular image currently doesn't seem hugely relevant, as Cha-U-Kao isn't mentioned in the article – indeed, the only mention of French lesbianism in that section at all is "For instance, there was probably a lesbian subculture amongst dancers and prostitutes in eighteenth and early-nineteenth century Paris". If you want to revert me and add in a better caption for the image explaining its relevance I will leave it there, but it would be even better if you could add some relevant text to the article as well (alternatively, if you know of any good sources for French lesbianism in the period, I'm happy to have a look at those and see what can be added to the article text.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, great, I'll see what I can do. ABF99 (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Caeciliusinhorto. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Legobot, on behalf of RL0919 -- RL0919 (talk

Thinking about copyediting this one, but it's easier for me if there are no unresolved issues when I start. Are you basically happy or basically unhappy with the nominator's responses? - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

There is, as the template says, mail awaiting you. Cheers!

The article

The article Brothers Poem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brothers Poem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RL0919 -- RL0919 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I withdrew this nom. Thanks anyway for the review. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Academia is that it contains all kinds of stuff. The citation was incomplete--nothing but a bare URL--and so it could have been anything that someone uploaded. If that citation had included publication information I would not have used that rationale. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The article

Hello, Caecilius. I've deprodded Alkimachos of Pydna pending further discussion on the article's talk page. I think there's enough noteworthy material to be worth at least a merger onto another page, if not permanently saving the existing article. Your suggestions or comments are welcome at Talk:Alkimachos of Pydna. P Aculeius (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk

Thank you for your message! I haven't finished yet - there's quite a lot more to add, but it's a start! I was actually editing (but failed to tag appropriately) as part of the WCC project on improving representation of Women Classical Scholars (project here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Women's_Classical_Committee) - it sounds like you might be interested in what we've been doing, so if you ever fancy joining us, we have monthly online sessions at which you'd be very welcome! KateCook (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

On 26 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Theoris of Lemnos, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the prosecution of Theoris of Lemnos is the most detailed account of a witch trial to survive from Classical Greece? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Theoris of Lemnos. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Theoris of Lemnos), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Mifter (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You are correct.

While previously I had directly linked to the section that spoke of the authorship of the work that the article was speaking about. This link was changed by another editor.

When I linked to go past the redirect I failed to have it go directly to the section. Therefore, it is not covered by the standard I was thinking of which is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Piped_links_and_redirects_to_sections_of_articles .

Upon review, as the section on authorship of the linked article is at the top. I concede that there is no need for the section to be directly linked to. --Wowaconia (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

In light of the above, I have reversed my link edit on the article about the 411 coup. --Wowaconia (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk

The article Sappho 16 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sappho 16 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I hope everything is well. Several months ago, you provided some helpful suggestions to improve the article Astronomica that I was working on. Well, since then, I've put in a lot of work into it and am currently nominating it at FAC. I was wondering if you would be willing to look over the article as it is and maybe leave some comments on the FA nomination page? I would really appreciate it. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

A year ago ...

women in Classical Athens
... you were recipient no. 1440 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Caeciliusinhorto, if that’s your real name, so the reference to Plato has nothing to do with the development of the story of Sappho-as-what-ever-you-said, but the section is, after all, titled “ancient reputation”, and Plato is “celebrity casting”, and he’s willing to add some star power to your paragraph and he won’t charge you a penny. I’m not saying that Dioscorides, and Antipater of Sidon are anything to sneeze at, but … you get my point. So okay, I confess! I was the one that stuck the Plato non sequitur in there, thinking you could figure out what to do with it. You coulda just hit the paragraph button and given him a paragraph all to his own. Voila! Problem solved! Actually … don’t. Ignore all of the above, and do what you want. You’re doing a great job with the article, and I enjoy following your edits, I hope you don’t mind. And I’ll keep my two cents to myself from now on. So there. Yours truly, Handthrown (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@

own

them, and I'm certainly not infalliable: I always appreciate seeing what others think should and shouldn't be in the articles I watch, even when I disagree with them.

I absolutely agree that Plato has name-recognition amongst non-classicists that makes him a valuable person to reference in discussions on the ancient reception of Sappho (and, indeed, pretty much anything else in ancient Greece). However, he doesn't quite seem to fit where you put him, and I haven't quite worked out where he does fit. Looking into it, I see that Dimitrios Yatromanolakis has a little to say about Plato and the Phaedrus in Sappho in the Making; the line is also mentioned by Ellen Greene in "Sappho, Foucault, and Women's Erotics". Perhaps the answer is to try to work up another paragraph on Sappho's influence on ancient conceptions of love, but apart from that Plato quote I don't think that I have any material off-hand that fits in it. Any ideas? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Caeciliusinhorto, for the thoughtful response. I may not just now have any ideas about what to do with Plato, just non sequiturs. But if I come up with something I will let you know. It means a lot that Plato mentioned her, though would it've killed him to give us little more than he did? I don't think so. The story in this article is astounding, and it’s so good that it’s getting such great attention from you. There is one edit I’d be tempted to make: The lead section ends with “three epigrams attributed to her are preserved, but these are in fact Hellenistic imitations.”, but I think it should instead end with something like: “three epigrams attributed to her are preserved, but these epigrams are in fact not by Sappho, but are later Hellenistic imitations of her”. I don’t know. I have to think about it. Handthrown (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It means a lot that Plato mentioned her, though would it've killed him to give us little more than he did? the eternal curse of the classicist! we never know as much as we would like.

three epigrams attributed to her are preserved, but these are in fact Hellenistic imitations I bet that's my wording; I have a bad habit of writing excessively compressed sentences. I'm sure it could be improved. Something like "though three epigrams attributed to Sappho are preserved, they are later Hellenistic imitations of her style rather than authentic poems by her", perhaps? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes! The edit you suggest is excellent. Handthrown (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It does discuss Sappho if you scroll down to the bottom of the page and the next page.^[1] Garfield7380 (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see now that it does discuss Sappho. Given that its only mention of Sappho is to say that she was a lesbian, which a) has historically been a major question in studies of Sappho, and consequently there are an abundance of works by actual specialists addressing the question, b) given that it predates Wilamowitz, is essentially irrelevant to modern scholarship on the issue, and c) modern scholarship is increasingly tending towards "this is the Wrong Question", I don't see that the article is missing anything by not citing it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It is actually possible for people not logged in to create articles either through The Article Wizard or Draft Space.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The article Midnight poem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Midnight poem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The reference #9 is too vague (couldn't find any related publication). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowprophet (talk • contribs) 07:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cowprophet: the paper is "A Methodological Inquiry: The Great Bronze Athena by Pheidias" which is already cited at n.2. Giving the full citation on first occurence and a shortened citation thereafter is perfectly common as a citation practice in the classics. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

In that case, and if you would like, please fix the reference to point to #2 instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowprophet (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk

("Hi there", forsooth! Blasted bot!) I've left a handful of comments for your consideration, but nothing that is an impediment to the promotion of this excellent article. I see from your GA nomination note that you return from foreign parts tomorrow: on the assumption that you may want a few days before returning to the article, I'll look in next week unless you ping me first. Tim riley talk 19:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Legobot, on behalf of Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk

It looks like you've got a typo in the "performance context" section (initiating the new groom into the rans of married me). Trials of married life, maybe? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Good spot; fixed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your criticism of my Corinna change -- I intended to keep rewriting it to make it more coherent but stopped at an intermediate stage. I sometimes get all bollixed up with using the editor if I have to make a lot of changes at once so I do it in stages. Apparently there is no way to save drafts of edits until you get it all right.

@The Uncle of History: I was actually going to put a message on your talkpage, but got distracted, so thanks for reminding me. If you are doing complex edits, especially ones which will take multiple commits to finish, it is best to give descriptive edit summaries so other users can tell what you are trying to do. As it is, it is very difficult for me to see where this edit is going. I don't use the visual editor, so I can't help you with that; I just write everything in wiki-markup in a text editor and then move it over to the wiki when I am happy with it, but I appreciate that this is not so easy to do if you don't read markup languages pretty fluently.

All of that aside, it's always nice to see another editor who focuses on ancient Greece; there aren't very many of us. Your area of interest looks to be a little more recent than mine, from your contributions; I mostly work on archaic articles at the moment. Hope you stick around, though, and if you ever need any help with the obscurities of wikipedia editing, do feel free to drop me a message here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I meant to mention that another reason I abandoned that edit in mid stream was that the editor stopped responding in the middle of things -- I couldn't move the cursor around, though I was definitely in edit mode. I also find trying to manage citations in the editing process can be confusing, but hopefully that will eventually become clearer to me. I'll come back to Corinna at some point and try to organize my contribution better. Actually I've been more interested in Greek poetry than history, but I'm currently reviewing Greek history and find that revising some of the articles helps me to retain the material. The Uncle of History (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, well if you are around the poetry articles I'll definitely be seeing you around; I watch pretty much all the articles on Greek women poets, and many of the ones on archaic lyric poets. Citations are one of those things which you'll eventually learn, but so long as you are adding something which makes it clear what you are referencing, other editors can always fiddle around with the formatting... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

	The pseudo-Gregory barnstar
	A wrong Gregory, but a Gregory nonetheless :) thanks for your review- it was a pleasure working with you. Take care, — velut luna 19:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Caeciliusinhorto, I just wanted to give you a "heads up" that I suggested an edit on the talk page of the Sappho article. My suggestion may be factually accurate, but if you could check it (if you feel like it and have a moment) I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Gaustaag (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I’ve enjoyed reading the Brother’s Poem article. It is well written sentence-by-sentence, and it contains a wealth of ideas and information. I do have a few comments, for whatever they may be worth. I feel that the organization and arrangement of the content needs be considered, perhaps it might help to have more headings and subheadings, and to keep the content under each heading “on topic”. The article begins with a rich load of detail coming like shotgun blasts from a few directions: the date of publication, the name of the discoverer, a mention of Oxford, and so on. I think the reader might want to say: Wait, hold on, slow down. The “lead” should be more like a headline — a couple of sentences, with few details — only those that serve the lead’s purpose. The details of the first two paragraphs could be absorbed into what follows the lead. The reader should be seen as someone who doesn’t know much about all this at all, doesn’t know Sappho, and thinks that “archaic” is a put-down (and could use a little definition). I’d suggest a lead could be something like: “The Brother’s Poem is a poem written by Sappho, a poet of ancient Greece, known for her vivid and evocative writings on human nature, on love, and sexuality; and whose work preceded and greatly inspired authors of the classical period. That the Brother’s Poem is extant after more than 27 centuries, and was only very recently found, makes it a remarkable and rare instance of survival and discovery, especially in light of the fact that most of Sappho’s poetry has been lost to modern readers. The Brother’s Poem is concerned with the safe return of Sappho’s brother from an ocean voyage.” Then the article begins. Also, I think the reader wants the “goods” — the poem itself — and misses them when they are not there. The poem doesn’t need to be fully quoted from a modern translation, but it’s short enough to be paraphrased. Or it could be made up with short quotes combined with paraphrases, and in a section of it’s own. It could start: This poem begins with Sappho speaking to another, and saying that the other “keeps telling everyone” that Kharaxos’ boat always arrives fully-loaded. (etc) Regarding the “story of the discovery”, which a reader would be eager to pounce on, is scattered in bits and pieces. And it’s not obvious where to find it. I think the reader would love to have it told in a unified way in its own section that might subsume the section that’s there now headed "preservation". It might be good to include the original Greek version in the article, even for non-Greek readers, to get a sense of it. Best, Gaustaag (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gaustaag: thanks for this! I don't have time to do your commentary justice right this moment, but I think you are definitely right that the organisation of the lead bears consideration. I shall hopefully have time to look in detail at your comments tonight; if not I shall get to them later in the week. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

On 19 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sappho, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the song cycles by Wilhelm Killmayer, written across five decades, set poems by authors from Sappho to Peter Härtling, with a focus on the late poems by Hölderlin? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sappho), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 12:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Caecilius, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I will definitely keep them in mind. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 22:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Caeciliusinhorto! I just re-submitted the Astronomica for FAN here. I was wondering if you might be able to drop by and leave a few comments/suggestions? I'd really appreciate it! Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The article

On

Nemrud Dagh in Turkey, but never discovered the tomb of Antiochus I of Commagene that she hoped to find there? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Theresa Goell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Theresa Goell), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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

.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I notice that the peer review for Elizabeth David is listed next to the one for the Brothers Poem. If you fancied a spot of getting your own back after my nit-picking litany, it would be splendid if you were to look in at Mrs David's PR. – Tim riley talk 08:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, this is right in my wheelhouse. I know David's writings, but I had never realised how interesting a life she had before she became a cookery writer. Any more of this sort of thing that you are looking for another set of eyes on, do ask. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Caeciliusinhorto! About a month ago, I nominated

16:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gen. Quon: thanks for poking me. I had intended to give you a FAC review when you first nominated, but then Real Life happened to me. I've given a few comments now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sappho

The article Sappho you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sappho for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

And an addendum from a real person: congratulations on a most satisfying article. Tim riley talk 00:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Types of Women

The article Types of Women you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Types of Women for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Caeciliusinhorto. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sappho 2

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk

) 18:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sappho 2

The article Sappho 2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sappho 2 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all your edits! They are greatly appreciated. Srsval (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Peer review newsletter #1

Introduction

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

• THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
• Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

Updates

It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...

With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing

The list is here in case you've forgotten:

WP:PRV

. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

• {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
• {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Caeciliusinhorto. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Great to see you back!

It is great to see you are back writing on Wikipedia after so long an absence! You are definitely one of the best writers we have on classics-related subjects. —Katolophyromai (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Katolophyromai! I've been quite productive over the past month or so – looking to give Sappho 94 another coat of polish and maybe write a little more on Archaic Greece in coming months. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Pageviews analysis of articles on Sappho poems

I was idly curious on how many views the Sappho articles were getting so I punched them in here: [1] No major surprises but I still found the table interesting to look at. Haukur (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think there's anything that surprising there: Ode to Aphrodite and Sappho 31 are, as expected, decidedly the most popular.

What is interesting is this version of the chart: you can clearly see the spike in pageviews for Frr. 1 and 31 from August-September 2017, coinciding with

the front page. (If you remove those two and Sappho 2, which was only created around the time Sappho hit GA, you can see similar spikes for Brothers Poem, Sappho 16 and Sappho 44 become clear.) If you look at the individual page data for Ode to Aphrodite and Sappho 31, you can also clearly see that those spikes aren't temporary: there is a distinct before/after difference. (The same is true for Sappho

herself: since she hit GA, she's averaged something over 6000 more views-per-month.)

New message from Serial Number 54129

Hello, Caeciliusinhorto. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Marc Bloch/archive1.
Message added 14:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry about the delay, Caeciliusinhorto! ——SerialNumber54129 14:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sappho 94

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk

) 20:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Brothers Poem

Congratulations on the promotion! Deserved recognition for some very thorough work. Haukur (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Haukurth: Thanks very much! My next Sappho project is likely to be bringing Ode to Aphrodite to GA, but I think there's enough material on Tithonus poem that with a bit of work that could be a fairly respectable featured article some day... And of course gallons of scholarly ink have been spilt on Sappho 31, to the point that bringing that to FA is intimidating more from the sheer volume of sources I would have to work through! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I love the Ode to Aphrodite and fondly remember writing an essay on it back in undergrad. It would be a great subject for an FA. Haukur (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1800.

page curation process

had the following comments:

Another nice one.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Haukurth}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Haukur (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Grigson

Thank you for brush up on the Grigson article - they are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: You are most welcome – I always enjoy seeing your (and Tim riley's!) work cross my watchlist, and Grigson is a fine successor to your previous English cookery writer FACs. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Greece
		Even though I have mostly left Wikipedia and I am no longer writing articles, I still pop over here now and then to see what is going on. I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate and admire all the excellent work you have done and continue to do for Wikipedia. Your articles about ancient Greece and Rome are among the best Wikipedia has. I was saddened when I saw you had left and I am so glad you have decided to come back. —Katolophyromai (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Thank you! I am sorry to hear that you have largely left wikipedia. I continue to appreciate your work here, especially to ancient Greek literature – there's plenty more where that came from if you ever feel like making a return! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I am still writing obsessively, but I am no longer writing on Wikipedia nearly as much as I used to. Nowadays I mostly write answers on Quora and articles on my personal website. Here is a link to my Quora profile and here is a link to my personal website. As I said, I still log on to Wikipedia every so often to see what is going on and occasionally make minor edits and changes. I am more active than you were while you were gone.

I am actually rather dissatisfied with the article "ancient Greek literature" since that was the first article I ever worked on that I tried to bring up to GA status and, at the time I was writing it, I did not know how writing articles on Wikipedia worked. Most of the citations in that article I just copied from other articles here on Wikipedia, thinking that was acceptable. If figured that, if they were good enough to support similar statements in other articles, then they were good enough for the article "ancient Greek literature." Obviously that is not acceptable and I was foolish for thinking that it was, but I mostly worked on that article while I was in my junior year of high school and I just did not know any better. Now that I am a sophomore in college, I know better than to do stupid and lazy things like that. The articles "Athena," "Inanna," "Hypatia," and "Aphrodite" were the first ones I wrote that I actually did in the proper way by actually finding all my own sources. The articles I worked on closer to the end of my time on Wikipedia, such as "satyr," "Library of Alexandria," "Epicurus," and "Pythagoras" are all much better in my opinion. —Katolophyromai (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, all of us (we hope!) get better at writing wikipedia articles with practice. It may not be up to your standards today, but when you look back at what it looked like before you started editing it, you will realise that you did massively improve ancient Greek literature. Skimming through the articles on Hypatia and Library of Alexandria, they do indeed look like excellent work. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Julian of Norwich

Hello Caeciliusinhorto, I think all the required changes to Julian are done, including the citations. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Corinna

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk

) 07:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Corinna

The article Corinna you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Corinna for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thirsty work, keeping good articles free from complete arsehattery! Many thanks for your due diligence, Caeciliusinhorto. and I look forward to working with you again. Cheers! *hic*  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 19:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sappho 94

The article Sappho 94 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sappho 94 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theresa Goell

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk

) 22:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)