User talk:Ifly6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Barnstar

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]

A barnstar for you!

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]

A barnstar for you!

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]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (consul 78 BC), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metellus Nepos.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced articles February 2024 backlog drive

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive

There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact.

  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited.
  • Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Rubicon

An article that you have been involved in editing—Rubicon —has been proposed for merging with Crossing the Rubicon. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Plataea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ancient Thebes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Ifly6 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts around 27 February 2024

I reverted a substantial number of page edits, most of which added unnecessary infoboxes (an infobox is not necessary to summarise an article that is itself two sentences long); unsourced and fictitious dates of birth, death, or army service; and other errors from user Edgenut. This affected, I estimate, around 360 different pages. These mostly related to obscure Roman, Greek, and Chinese historical figures with some overlap onto historical artefacts.

I attempted to do these reversions accurately while also preserving edits that were legitimate contributions. If doing so introduced errors, I apologise. Reversions were done in good faith though rather more rapidly than I would perhaps have wanted on further reflection. If you feel as though I should fix them myself please draw my attention to them. Otherwise, I encourage you to do so yourself. Ifly6 (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edgenut questioned the deletion of the image he used for an infobox on Quintus Tullius Cicero. I checked, and he's right about it not being (more) anachronistic than the one that remains; but just as importantly, the image was there before he placed it in an infobox. So I've replaced it where it originally was in the article, and replied to Edgenut's comment. There could, of course, be other instances like this where an image that was already in an article got placed in an infobox by Edgenut, and then got deleted entirely when you removed the infobox. But I understand why it might not be practical to check all of his contributions to find them! P Aculeius (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting that error! Ifly6 (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mish-mash of Eastern Roman and Byzantine terms. Any idea which were used when this article was reviewed as GA? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I only edited it because a now-blocked editor had attempted to improve it. This is, regardless, the version that was reviewed for
WP:GA: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_War_(535%E2%80%93554)&oldid=846897018. Taking a look at the GA version, I wouldn't have passed it myself simply because the main source used, Bury's History of the Later Roman Empire is simply too old. One of the GA citations is to Gibbon! Ifly6 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Constitution of the Roman Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcus Fulvius Flaccus. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ifly6 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Hello, Ifly6,

Regarding your AFD, the articles you listed were not formatted correctly for a bundled nomination. Instead you just listed them on the page. Could you please review the instructions at

WP:AFD for bundled nomination and add the correct tags to the nomination? This will make it much easier for a closer who won't have to handle each page manually. It's really not complicated, you just add a code to each article title. Thanks for your help. Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Sure, added the {{la}} template to each list entry. Ifly6 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for PHerc. Paris. 4

On

23 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article PHerc. Paris. 4, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it took a particle accelerator and machine-learning algorithms to extract the charred text of PHerc. Paris. 4 without unrolling it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/PHerc. Paris. 4. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, PHerc. Paris. 4), 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
.

WaggersTALK 00:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Republican Rome

Hi, do you know if there is a good map of Republican Rome (the city) somewhere on Commons by any chance? T8612 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publius Clodius Pulcher's proper name

Are you sure the source cited demonstrates (not merely claims) that Clodius wasn't called "Claudius" until some point in his political career? I've always understood that he affected the spelling because he thought it looked plebeian (perhaps having first been adopted by descendants of freedmen). And I'm pretty sure I've read that in standard reference sources, though I'm not sure which—probably DGRBM or OCD2. Also, pretty sure all of his other relatives used "Claudius" and "Claudia", or at least they did most of the time. Like I said, I haven't checked, but I'll be surprised if there's any proof that he wasn't originally "Claudius"; if other references agree with the above, then maybe the source cited is just one scholar's opinion—or one of two competing theories. P Aculeius (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first time Clodius appears in the reliable sources for this sort of thing, he's called Clodius in letters from Cicero. Tatum 1999, now generally accepted to be the standard biography in English, and Riggsby 2002 both note that there's no ancient evidence for the claim that he took the o-form to be more appealing to plebs. I recall reading that the o-form emerged from Oscan-tinged Latin. There's no reason also to suppose he adopted it. An uncle of his is attested by inscription with an o-form name in the 90s; two of his sisters are called only Clodia.
In my rewrite – User:Ifly6/Publius Clodius Pulcher – I've followed them. As to previous reference material, a lot of them say that Clodius adopted the o-form at his adoption. Both Tatum 1999 and Riggsby 2002 convincingly note the impossibility of this when Cicero is calling him Clodius at the start of the Bona Dea affair. Riggsby 2002 also notes that the sources don't assign au- and o- forms to patrician or plebeian. And both put Clodius' plebeian turn to after the Bona Dea affair – before this he was chilling with Murena, and possibly Cicero, – which means the timeline doesn't work for adoption to appeal to the plebs. I can't find anything more recent than Riggsby that at all touch on the topic. Ifly6 (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OCD21 makes no comment on his name, though it notes that Appius Claudius Pulcher was his brother and in her entry, Clodia his sister. (I don't remember anyone accusing her of changing her name in accord with her incestuous brother's political finagling and can't think why Cicero would leave that out. But I'm no expert let alone RS.) NebY (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]