Jump to content

User talk:UndercoverClassicist/Archive 3

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

Question from Annika59 (19:40, 22 April 2024)

Hello, hope you are doing well. I have read all the initial Wikipedia policies. I have done some edits as well to practice and memorize the policies. The community has been very helpful as well. I want to learn to source editing. It seems to me some sort of a programing language, I don't know what it is called. If you can guide me regarding it, I will be very grateful. Thank you. --Annika59 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- honestly, I think the best way to learn how the markup works is to simply have a look at it when you're editing (most things, like text and links, are fairly self-explanatory if you look at the code and the finished article alongside each other). You might want to have a look at this help page, which has some of the basics on it.
You'll see a few templates (in pointy brackets, like this: {{sfn|Smith|1994|p=18}} -- those each have their own documentation, which you can find by searching for Template: and then whatever is after the bracket but before the first | (so "Template:sfn" in this case). Generally speaking, you don't have to do too much with those to be able to do most things. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Thank you so much. I would try to learn as much as I can, and ask you if anything henders. Thank you. Annika59 (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Anactoria

On 4 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anactoria, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that scholars debate whether Anactoria, mentioned in Sappho's poems, was a real person, a pseudonym, or an invention of Sappho? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anactoria. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Anactoria), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Alan Wace

Congratulations, UndercoverClassicist! The article you nominated, Alan Wace, 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, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Clive.tyesi on Calcium carbonate (06:29, 10 May 2024)

what is the aim of this investigation --Clive.tyesi (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arthur Fulton (sport shooter)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arthur Fulton (sport shooter) 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 Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity

I humbly ask (beg?) for any input you might be willing to give, especially on the high and late Middle Ages sections, after extensive rewriting of this page, that might help make it FA quality. Please. And thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Tiger PR

I listed tiger for peer review. Would appreciate a through review to prepare it for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What are your plans? I feel like it would be better if you reviewed it at PR than FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello -- I'll try to give it a look. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Just want clarification if you intend to "nitpick" at PR. I think it would be better served there as there isn't a timeline. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Annika59 (00:48, 11 May 2024)

Hello, hope you are doing well. I wanted to know, how to do cleanup of page like Alise Willoughby? Such pages have a few references, and there structure doesn't follow the conventional formate of Wikipedia articles. Kindly, guide me in this regard. Thank you. --Annika59 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- there are a few things that I would be looking at if overhauling the article:
  • Format: we don't generally use bold text outside subheadings and the subject's name in the first sentence. The list with bold starters like "Started racing" should be rewritten as continuous prose, in paragraphs. Elsewhere, wikilinks should be removed from subheaders.
  • Grammar: there are a number of incomplete sentences: these should be reworked into full sentences.
  • The "Note" asides, if considered helpful, would be better as footnotes: we don't generally use "editorial" asides in the body text of an article.
  • The list of titles is quite oddly formatted, and seems very long: I would try to work out which of these were particularly important, and which could be summarised, joined together or left out (given that she was a world champion at the time, for example, is it particularly notable that she also won a district-level competition in Minnesota in 2004?).
  • Referencing: quite a lot of the statements in the article have no apparent source: the ideal is that everything in an article can be referred to a reliable, independent source.
I hope this is helpful. You might want to take the article to Peer Review to get some more input on it, perhaps once you've had a go at these things. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Most appriciated. Annika59 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arthur Fulton (sport shooter)

The article Arthur Fulton (sport shooter) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arthur Fulton (sport shooter) for comments about the article, and Talk:Arthur Fulton (sport shooter)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Br42092 (05:03, 17 May 2024)

How do I create a page about a business --Br42092 (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homeric Hymns

The article Homeric Hymns you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Homeric Hymns for comments about the article, and Talk:Homeric Hymns/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Morrison Man -- The Morrison Man (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Under the unacknowledged on Marriage law (18:12, 9 May 2024)

Hello. What must be updated about this page? --Under the unacknowledged (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the laws in some countries have changed -- particularly around same-sex marriage, for instance? You'd have to do a bit of research to find out, but looking out for statements referenced to older sources and checking if they're still valid would be a good start. You might also look around in the news for headlines like "X legalises same-sex marriage". UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Wace in Rome

Hi there. I'm getting ready to upload some photos of sculpture in the Capitoline Museums, and in the course of preparing references and descriptions I've been looking at the old catalogue of the collection edited by Stuart Jones and published in 1912. The descriptions in that catalogue were written by various members of the British School, and although the entries are not individually credited, the Roman portraits were apparently the work of Wace (see the preface, p. iii). That was news to me, so I turned to your article, where I read this in the Early Academic Career section: "Wace worked briefly as a librarian at the BSR between 1905 and 1906, supported by a grant from the British government to allow the BSR to catalogue its sculpture collections." What is the intended antecedent of the possessive "its" in this sentence? The British School? The British government? Neither makes any sense: the BSR does not have an extensive sculpture collection, and obviously Wace did not catalogue the sculpture held by British government in the various museums in the UK. The principal source cited is the DNB article, and if you read the whole paragraph there carefully, I think you'll see that when Gill writes "to work on the catalogue of the [sic] sculpture collections", he is referring to Stuart Jones's project to catalogue the Roman municipal collections in the Capitoline Museum and Palazzo dei Conservatori. (See also Wallace-Hadrill, The British School at Rome: One Hundred Years (London 2001), pp. 27–28.) This could probably do with a little clarification. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks -- I hadn't twigged about AWH's BSR volume, but it does clear up what wasn't particularly clear to me from the other sources -- adjusted the article to better clarify Wace's work and the nitty-gritty of the timeline. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
On another note, and at risk of being forward, I've got George E. Mylonas up at FAC -- if you get a moment, would appreciate your thoughts. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been pretty busy, but I gave it a quick read, made a couple of minor corrections, and added a few comments to the FAC page.
I'm leaving one further note here, since it concerns a small point of style and is not worth cluttering up the FAC page. It is generally considered good editorial practice not to mix monotonic and polytonic Greek in the citation of the single work, as you have done in your listing of the Acropolis article in the 1980 volume of the Praktika of the Athenian Academy, where the title of the article is polytonic but the title of the journal is monotonic. It's one thing to mix polytonic citations and monotonic citations in the same article, if the works cited were originally published under different systems; but it is another thing to mix polytonic titles and monotonic titles in the same citation, since every publication was originally either one or the other. Whether or not to convert polytonic titles to monotonic when citing older Greek scholarship is a question that comes up constantly for academic publishers in classics and archaeology. Basically, there are two choices: (1) Preserve the accentuation of the original publication, or (2) convert everything to monotonic. The first option is more historically accurate, but it inevitably leads to the appearance of inconsistent accentuation in a work that cites many different Greek sources, and it's also more time-consuming, because publications that appeared during the changeover period in the 80s and 90s must be checked in order to determine which system they used. The second option is easier, saves time, and guarantees consistency, but at the expense of slightly misrepresenting works published more than a few decades ago, although admittedly not in a way that makes any real difference. Both approaches are perfectly defensible. Almost all Greek publishers are now exclusively monotonic (as is Greek WP), but the practice among Anglophone academic publishers varies depending on the policy of the press and the preferences of individual editors and authors. (Not surprisingly, classicists tend to be on the conservative side of this issue.) Whether intentionally or not, you adopted the first option: you used polytonic in the titles of Mylonas's publications when they were published that way, but monotonic in the names of 21st-century websites that were published in monotonic (e.g., Πρόσωπα της Εταιρείας: Mυλωνάς Γεώργιος in note 11 and Τακτικά μέλη της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών κατά σειρά εκλογής in note 82). That seems perfectly fine to me, EXCEPT for the inconsistency in the citation of the 1980 article. The Athenian Academy was still publishing in polytonic in 1980, and that's the accentuation you use in the title of the article, so I recommend that you change the title of the journal to polytonic as well (= Πρακτικὰ τῆς Ἀκαδημίας Ἀθηνῶν). The alternative is to change everything to monotonic, but there should be no mixing and matching within any single citation. Choliamb (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This is all very good sense: slightly complicated by the fact that the Archaeological Society still publish (at least sometimes, and at least until very recently) in polytonic. I've tried to respect that: where a title was originally written in polytonic, I've tried to carry it through, although those titles are also often given in all-caps in the original and I don't have a great intuitive grasp of which accents go where (despite the best efforts of some very wise people to teach me the equivalent rules in Ancient Greek a long time ago!) hanged the 1980 title, with thanks. Other replies to follow on the FAC page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For the incredible work you've done; glad to see ancient Greece (and scholars thereof) getting the attention it deserves. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
This is extremely kind: thank you, Iazyges. Good to see you back around the place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from TX2SBIGGESTFAN on Draft:TX2 (Evan Thomas) (03:42, 25 May 2024)

How do I create a section to write a new topic about this ariticle in? --TX2SBIGGESTFAN (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Begging bowl

I have Robert Schumann up for peer review, and if you happen to have time and inclination I'd value your comments. Natch. Tim riley talk 18:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Will certainly take a look. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Nonmetal FAC #9

Are you able to comment on this nomination(?); there's no obligation. Thanks, Sandbh (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Beulé Gate, "about the last major monument to be uncovered on the Acropolis of Athens, and indeed one of its last classical structures to be built. Constructed from the dismembered remains of the Choragic Monument of Nicias, the Beulé Gate was built to fortify the Acropolis in the Late Roman period, fiddled around with over the ensuing centuries, and rather ignominiously buried under an Ottoman cannon emplacement until 1852. Its discovery -- complete, as all good nineteenth-century archaeology was, with frankly irresponsible quantities of gunpowder -- led to celebration in France, indignation in Greece and a new hat (and possibly new trousers) for Kyriakos Pittakis."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Hope all's well with you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
check out story and places, and you know ;) - how about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Narwhal

Hi. You've reviewed both of my FACs, so I was hoping you'd take a look at the peer review before the FAC later this month. I'd appreciate a critique of the prose, as that was the main reason for my last FAC failing. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 10:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, can you please go over Narwhal as I plan to nominate it on June 1st? Will you please? Your feedback would be of great importance. I think it would be better if you posted your main concerns on the PR rather than the FAC. This reduces the chances of the article failing to hit the mark. Thanks for your time, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 04:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from SMSIndigo (13:28, 29 May 2024)

I am editing correct information on Colors Kannada Wiki Page. But some sources are counting it as wrong and removing my edits. Please help me out. --SMSIndigo (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- I don't know the specific situation here, but a few general things that tend to come up when this sort of thing happens:
UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of George E. Mylonas

Congratulations, UndercoverClassicist! The article you nominated, George E. Mylonas, 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) 19:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Moir Calder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elgin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

DNP and BNP

I see Mylonas was promoted. Congratulations. Sticking this here since the FAC is closed, and it's more of a general point anyway. Most of the Neue Pauly supplemental volumes, including suppl. I.6 with the mini-biographies of classical scholars, are also available in English. In the Mylonas article you've cited the German version:

  • Panagiotopoulos, Diamantis (2015) [2012]. "Mylonas, Georgios". In Cancik, Hubert; Landfester, Manfred; Schneider, Helmuth (eds.). Der Neue Pauly Supplemente I Online – Band 6: Geschichte der Altertumswissenschaften: Biographisches Lexikon [The New Pauly Supplements I Online – Volume 6: History of Ancient Studies: Biographical Dictionary]. Der Neue Pauly – Supplemente, 1. Staffel (in German). Stuttgart: Brill. doi:10.1163/2452-3054_dnpo6_COM_00505. Retrieved January 13, 2024.

Nothing wrong with that, but the English version would probably be more helpful to most en-Wiki readers. Here's a link to the English suppl. I.6 via the Wikipedia Library; and here's the doi for the Mylonas entry by Panagiotopoulos: doi:10.1163/2214-8647_bnps6_COM_00504. Something to keep in mind for the future, since you're certain to refer to it again given the kind of work you do. Choliamb (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Consulting your advice on an academic's article

Good day! I've been loving your focus on the often neglected coverage of historians and archaeologists. I was thinking of following your footsteps down the line with Frederick Seguier Drake, but I am unsure what to do to get it to FAC-ready shape. I feel like I have exhausted all sourcing available, but I realize you might know other methods or places to look for coverage on academics, and what else might need to be shaped up about the article before its ready for that. Thank you very much for your time! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Just looking quickly at that article, I don't notice any obituaries -- have you had a look at journals in the field (JSTOR?) around the time of his death? . For archaeologists, you can often get good information about when they excavated at a certain place from the publications of their excavations. It does look from Google Books like much of the bibliography is in Chinese, which is pretty insurmountable for me but may not be a problem for you.
When I put in my first academic FAC (Panagiotis Kavvadias), I was advised to look particularly at the "legacy" section (i.e., to make sure that I had one): why was this person important in their field? Has their work had any impact, started any debates, been accepted or been criticised by the academic community? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Alan Wace

The safest time to run things at TFA is when they've recently been promoted ... would July 13 work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 05:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yup, works well! I'll put together a blurb but I'm never sure exactly where they're meant to be written? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:TFAR isn't necessary, but for people who use TFAR, the blurb goes there. Otherwise, the blurb always goes on the talk page of the FAC nomination page. Feel free to write one, but I reserve the right to fiddle with it (and you can fiddle back). - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Brill: I've put something onto the Alan Wace FAC talk page. Very much just a first start. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Enormously helpful, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to make a couple of edits ... if it's too much, you can revert, but I've found that using too many foreign or technical terms, no matter what the subject matter is, tends to draw scrutiny from the Main Page folks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay that's more or less it (except that now the blurb is one sentence too short ... anything you want to add?) - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Added something. Another option could be something about textiles? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Sure if you like, but what you added is great too. Thanks for tolerating my style ... it's really nothing more than guesswork based on past experiences. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Cist grave

Hello, I've seen you made the redirect Cist grave but it loops back in on itself. Could you fix the redirect? mwwv converse∫edits 16:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Oops! Now goes to the right place (Cist). UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Fulton (sport shooter)

On 14 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Fulton (sport shooter), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Arthur Fulton was a sniper in the First World War and described as "the most famous rifle shot the world has ever known"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Fulton (sport shooter). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Arthur Fulton (sport shooter)), 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 16,113 views (671.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert Alexander Neil

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert Alexander Neil 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) 10:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert Alexander Neil

The article Robert Alexander Neil you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert Alexander Neil for comments about the article, and Talk:Robert Alexander Neil/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Homeric Hymns

On 18 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Homeric Hymns, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the ancient Homeric Hymns influenced the works of James Joyce, Alfred Hitchcock and Neil Gaiman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Homeric Hymns. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Homeric Hymns), 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) 00:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Adam Parry

On 20 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Adam Parry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the classicist Adam Parry said that he had only ever considered three careers: academia, law and beachcombing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adam Parry. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Adam Parry), 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.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Buffyluvr (17:34, 20 June 2024)

Hi! So, I've never edited an article before but I have one that I definitely want to add information for. (Context: in the history of literature article, under medieval Italy, I want to add Dante's "The Divine Comedy" because duh) But I'm not sure about how to go about it. I know how to edit and do that but do I just add the information and links? I'm pretty sure I can match the article's tone no problem, just unsure how to approach it and I don't want to mess up. --Buffyluvr (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello - I wouldn't be too worried about getting it wrong, to be honest: "be bold" is one of the key maxims around here. The main thing to do is to put the information and some sort of reference to say where you got it. Don't worry too much about the style of that reference: as long as another editor can work out what the source is, it can always be polished up later on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Campbell Pogrom

Good Morning UndercoverClassicist, I have seen that you have done some excellent work on the article regarding the Campbell Pogrom. I am the main editor of the article in the greek wp and I would like to ask you if you happen to have a pdf version of kerem yitzchak's work so i can use on the greek wp. Thank you in advance. Popular Punk (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- many thanks for your kind words. I got that one via the preview on Google Books, I'm afraid, but happy to check details for you if you like? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh ok, i didnt google the book, i will do so. Thank you Popular Punk (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Francis Alexander (02:18, 21 June 2024)

Hello, UndercoverClassicist. I have reviewed introductory videos, followed and likely missed directions, created a first article, and viewed your talk page. This first article is an autobiography (a classical sculptor, architect, historian, and poet). Next articles will be biographies of 20th Century classical artists ignored or forgotten. Could be that I missed some detail about the "Sandbox" because the article neither publishes nor offers itself for review. What's to do? Sincerely, Francis Alexander --Francis Alexander (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello: are you talking about the notes on Michael J. Curtis on your user page? If you want feedback on it, go to Articles for Creation and follow the process there (you'll need to copy the code into a new page). Through that process, an experienced editor can have a look on it, advise on any changes that need to be made, and approve it for publication as an article when it's ready. I notice you said that the article was an autobiography: we generally don't advise writing articles about yourself, for various reasons, including the fact that it is very difficult to judge things like neutrality, verifiability and original research when you are yourself inseperable from the things you are writing about. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Much appreciated. Francis Alexander (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I know you're probably busy at the moment, but...

If you have any time, I've got a PR open on the Brighton bomb, running here; if you have any comments or thoughts, I'd be most grateful. It's the fortieth anniversary this year, so I'm hoping to get it into shape to the main page. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Husseinmn100 on Mill Hill (19:48, 29 June 2024)

Say hello and ask you I need a study i don't a have money I need to study mill hill. Please accept mill hill --Husseinmn100 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Homeric Hymns

Congratulations, UndercoverClassicist! The article you nominated, Homeric Hymns, 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) 12:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For your excellent contributions to the coverage of classical topics on Wikipedia, and especially your Good and Featured articles! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Sir Gorgonzola Of The Scots (22:03, 3 July 2024)

How do you add the user boxes --Sir Gorgonzola Of The Scots (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- the easiest way is to click "Edit" or "Edit source" on a page that has one you like, and copy-paste the code (it'll be between double angle brackets) into the page you want to put it onto. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Latymer at GAN

Latymer Upper School is back on the GAN list, if you'd like to do as you suggested and take up the reins again. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. I must admit that I am still very concerned about the sourcing, but it would seem only fair to give you a chance to sort it out now that (hopefully) most of the issues are in the light. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Liz Truss

Your note that Theresa May resigned from parliament before having to run again to potentially be booted is not true. She ran in the 2019 election and won after she resigned as Prime Minister. Demaanishelder (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The summary read "May and Johnson resigned before they could be voted out", which is true: Maidenhead went Liberal. Granted, the result might have been different if it was May running rather than a faceless Tory candidate, but she stepped down before she was pushed. What she did in 2019 doesn't matter in the context of the 2024 election. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

Question from Eserive on Ayra Starr (09:57, 9 July 2024)

How do I change an image on a page? --Eserive (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- do you mean to add a new image? If you edit the page and go into the Visual Editor, you can press Insert -> Images and Media, which will walk you through the rest. You can also enter the filename of the image directly, if you know it, from Wikimedia Commons. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi there. I stumbled upon you after seaching what FAC is and it seems to be you're very well experienced regarding about that. Aside from image/FUR issue, do you think Ada Wong has still many issues fir FAC? Many thanks 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 19:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- the important introductory caveat here would be that I have no experience with video-game articles, and it's always wise to get a perspective from someone who knows about the subject matter. I'll pop a few comments on the Peer Review page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Many thanks 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Alexxenon (07:52, 11 July 2024)

Hello, how can I search for people in this Wikipedia --Alexxenon (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Homeric Hymns scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 29 August 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi UC, I have switched this to 1 August. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Begging bowl again

Can I interest you in a combative Anglican bishop? I have Hensley Henson up for FAC, and would love to hear from you if you have time and disposition. Tim riley talk 16:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course -- will certainly take a look. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 63

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

  • One new partner
  • 1Lib1Ref
  • Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Alan Wace, "about a leading light of Mycenaean archaeology, and one whose full story has only relatively recently come to light. Wace has long been known for his excavations at Mycenae, particularly his work on the various fancifully-named tombs like "Atreus", "Aegisthus" and "Clytemnestra", and less widely for his spat with the formidable Arthur Evans. Though labelled as a "heretic" and drummed out of the British School at Athens, Wace's iconoclastic rejection of the idea that Mycenaean Greece was a dependent province of a Minoan thalassocracy was ultimately proven true and, depending on who you ask, may be the conclusive proof that Greek culture can trace an unbroken line back to the Bronze Age. Less well known until recently was his wartime espionage work: he worked in British intelligence during both World Wars and was a major link in the chain of monitoring and concealing secret agents in the Eastern Mediterranean."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach, - so 3 times Mozart if you click on "music" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Beccaram361 on Cristóbal Ramírez (painter) (12:43, 21 July 2024)

Hello I have a question my ancestor Cristobal Ramirez meet with king Philip ii which is 1 daughter and 2 sons with the king,what were the children names --Beccaram361 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Evan Wright

On 22 July 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Evan Wright, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Curbon7 (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at Alfred Biliotti. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Arjayay: thanks for fixing -- I'd moved the page from Userspace, but set the link up badly, so that it linked to the userspace version. I've now added the correct section link. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Gong

The Reviewer Barnstar
I struggle to find words to express my gratitude and admiration for your rigorous but delightful comments at FAC. Bless you! Tim riley talk 18:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)


And I continue to struggle to believe your patience with them -- I am glad that they seem useful. Always a pleasure to read such well-crafted articles about such interesting topics. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Hi @UndercoverClassicist, I was observing your reviews so far, and I found you as one of the best quality reviewers of Wikipedia. Whenever you feel less busy, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie/archive2, and any if your comments/review will be helpful. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for a PR

Hi UC, your comments were very helpful at the FAC for Galatian War. I responded to them but I don't think you could check them out since the coords closed it too prematurely, which has happened with me quite a few times. Nevertheless, do you think you could contribute to a peer review to improve the article, what with your busy schedule? I'm thinking of opening a PR but am not sure since I see most PRs barely get 1 reviewer, who is most often the PR coordinator. Thanks in advance Matarisvan (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- feel free to ping me if it does come up at PR, and I'll do my best to have a look in. However, I remember that Gog advised you to put it first to the Guild of Copyeditors, and then to a Milhist A-Class review: have you done either of those yet? In general, I think the points I made at the time about prose and the divide between Wikivoice facts and scholars' interpretations would still be my first comments if it came back to FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi UC, thanks for your response. As to why I have not submitted the article for a GoCE review, my reasoning is that the Earwig tool shows a 19.4% probability of copyvio, and the phrases it says are copyvios are just the author and title names of the sources used. You can check that out yourself if this is doubtful, and I don't know why Gog suggested a GoCE review at all. As for the WPMH A class review, I want to get one but my experience has not been great there. I've not gotten any comments on an article I put up there, and even though I comment on all A class reviews now, I don't think I would be able to close a review there before 3-4 months pass by. Which is why a PR seems to be the best option. Please let me know what you think about this. Thanks in advance Matarisvan (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you may be confused on the meaning of "copyedit" -- to copyedit an article is to look at its prose, grammar, clarity and spelling -- in other words, everything except the factual content. Copyvio and copyediting sound similar but are totally different things! Personally, I think Gog has it right: if you put it to those two places and nobody bites for three months, then it might be worth having another conversation about alternatives. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi UC, my bad. As you said, I got confused between copyvios and copywriting. As to putting the article up at either of GoCE or WPMH, I don't think Gog stipulated this as a compulsorily chronological order to be followed before a PR, wdyt? Anyways, I have opened a PR and would appreciate your comments. Thanks in advance Matarisvan (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
It's your decision, but I think Gog's advice was wise and I would take it in your position. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi UC, I agree and I would be open to getting reviews at GoCE and WPMH if a PR doesn't yield much, but initial comments are promising. I've linked to the PR here, I would appreciate your comments as always. Thanks in advance and cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Renaming categories

Hi. It appears you found Category:Tiryntian characters in Greek mythology and wanted to correct the spelling to Category:Tirynthian characters in Greek mythology. In future, please do so at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy rather than creating a new category, manually moving the contents and then trying to speedy delete the old category. MClay1 (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Broun

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Broun 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi UndercoverClassicist :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Seve Linis (08:52, 1 August 2024)

How do I create a new article? --Seve Linis (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Walter Abel Heurtley

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Walter Abel Heurtley 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 Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Walter Abel Heurtley

The article Walter Abel Heurtley 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:Walter Abel Heurtley and Talk:Walter Abel Heurtley/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Walter Abel Heurtley

The article Walter Abel Heurtley you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Walter Abel Heurtley for comments about the article, and Talk:Walter Abel Heurtley/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't have much to say, this was the closest to a quickpass I've been. Congrats on (another) GA! Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you -- your point on MOS:NOFORCELINK is well taken; I've put a brief explanation of my thinking on the review page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Fevziyildiz777 on Wikipedia:FIND (05:32, 10 August 2024)

Annen kim --Fevziyildiz777 (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Can we talk before I think of another nomination? Wolverine XI (talk to me) 22:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that before talking and certainly before another nom, you need to go through the comments of your previous FACs and do the hard graft of sorting out the sources, ensuring you have only the highest quality ones in the article, and ensuring the text aligns to them properly. - SchroCat (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you please be clear as to what is wrong? I want to know how I didn't address the sourcing issues. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 07:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
You have received excellent advice on this already -- the reviews so far have raised serious cause for concern about whether the cited sources actually support what they are meant to. As DWF said:

You should review every single statement and double-check that it corresponds to the cited reference. This should not be anyone else's problem to fix, certainly not peer review, because source reviewing is already a thankless job. The responsibility is yours here.

You also received excellent advice from Mike in the last FAC, and again I can do no better than to urge you to take it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 13 § Characters in Greek mythology by location

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 13 § Characters in Greek mythology by location on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mclay1 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

TFA again

story · music · places

Thank you today for Homeric Hymns, introduced: "This article is probably the "biggest", in all of technical challenge, subject matter, viewing numbers and sheer mass, that I've ever taken on. The Homeric Hymns are a hodge-podge corpus of Greek poems: neither meaningfully "Homeric" nor technically all "Hymns", but an interesting and until-lately quite neglected area of ancient literature. Most survive only in fragments and at least two were discovered by chance in an eighteenth-century barn, but we have them to thank for, among other stories, the most famous retelling of the myth of Demeter and Persephone. I have done my best to chart the winding thread of the Hymns' influence, from most of the greatest hits of ancient literature, to some pretty obscure late antique and medieval works, through to a surprisingly wide slice of modern culture: Botticelli, Goethe, Shelley, Ezra Pound, James Joyce, Alfred Hitchcock and Neil Gaiman. If you like arcane textual criticism and ridiculously long bibliographies, this one's for you. If you don't, I hope you'll give it a look anyway." -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, my topic of the day was Oedipus ;) - help with it's creator appreciated! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ha -- one of many Oedipuses! Of course; do let me know if it comes up at PR or FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I list articles for review here, and have a FAC and a GA, - would like BWV 101 a GA when it will turn 300 on 13 August ;) - Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
... and a third, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you consider a mentorship?

Hello UndercoverClassicist, I’m the primary contributor of Machu Picchu, which has gone through a peer review and is now awaiting a review in GAN. As I prepare to nominate it for FAC, I would really appreciate your guidance through the process, given your experience and interest in the ancient world and archaeology. Thanks in advance for your help with this. Best regards, JustEMV (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hiya -- thanks for getting in touch. If you do put it up for FAC, I'd be happy to act as a mentor: I'd suggest giving me a ping (and opening another Peer Review) once it passes GA. Just giving it a quick look at the moment, a couple of pointers that will come up at that stage:
Thank you for your willingness to mentor and for the helpful pointers. I’ll be in touch once the article passes GA. In the meantime, do you have any suggestions on how I might expedite the GA review process? Best, JustEMV (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
You just have to be patient, I'm afraid -- I've had nominations sit for several months at GA. Reviewing other people's nominations can help, as people are always more willing to return a favour and work with people they have enjoyed collaborating with before. Additionally, you could put it into the new GA review circles programme (see the Talk page), but you can't ask people for reviews directly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I’ll check out the GA review circles and will (try to) stay patient with the process. JustEMV (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Author Bayer (05:32, 16 August 2024)

our Wikipedia page keeps getting deleted. could you help with this? --Author Bayer (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- do you mean this draft of "Mike Bayer"? The issue here, unfortunately, is that not all subjects meet the criteria for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. That's not something that you can change by making the article better: it's a question of what degree of coverage already exists in quality, reliable, independent sources. For the specific rules at play here, see the rules for authors and for people involved in sport, or for biographical articles in general. If a subject or a person doesn't meet those criteria, any article on them is going to be deleted, however well-written it is. It also looks like you may have done this before and been blocked: creating a new account and trying to do the thing that got you blocked before is likely to lead to the new account being blocked as well. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Author Bayer (14:14, 13 August 2024)

my Wikipedia page keeps getting suspended. can you help me? --Author Bayer (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(Blocked as sock) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jeffrey Quill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air Force Cross.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a comment

Just a kudos. When looking at your role in ancient history FAC. Although you are tough and sometime come across as harsh. I want to acknowledge what you do in Wikipedia. You work recognize the talent of the editor, but don't hesitate to share the limitations as you see them. I just want to let you know that I appreciate you as an FA editor. Folk who have thought they groked Roman history, spanning 1000s of years—none of which are common (think of the changes in American politics in the last 300!)—and vast geographical disparities—west vs. east being huge, what is "Byzantine" and what is "Roman"— But bespelled by a single author, are set straight by your knowledge that Roman history is not defined by the current dominant auther.. Keep doing what you are doing, and don't let something become FA through attrition. (I suspect that you won't.)

Best, and with appreciation Wtfiv (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I think -- FA reviews by their nature need to be thorough and to pick up the small stuff. I know that can be frustrating or disheartening, but I hope I have managed not to be unkind or unfair while doing them. I'm sure I don't always get that right, and apologise for when I do fall short. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Consultation

Greetings! I've been working on the article for The Importance of Being Earnest, which was promoted to Good Article in 2010 and to my eye in 2024 didn't look anything approaching Good. Whether it is now Good or thereabouts after my ministrations is something I'm not sure about. I've filled in lots of gaps, deleted trivia, and fixed the references, but I wonder is it too bitty? Cogent enough? Too many sections (mostly not by me) of analysis? If you have half an hour to spare at some point I'd be glad if you'd look at the article and give me your opinion. I take the liberty of hitching a ride on your talk page to flag the same request up to SchroCat. Comments, if any, perhaps best on the article talk page. Tim riley talk 18:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Steve Jobs Of Africa (16:43, 23 August 2024)

Hello, I am Abu David from Nigeria.

I am super excited to know you'll be my mentor in this space, I have always seen a lot of great people who do great things in society go unrecognised.

I want to take it as a personal mission to spotlight people from Africa to the world through a global platform like Wikipedia.

I'd greatly appreciate your mentorship on this platform --Steve Jobs Of Africa (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Reply

Hi. I do not want the FAC to be flooded because of my ignorance since this is my first time. But yeah, I actually followed the pattern at the FA Jill Valentine. Since you said that it needs a good look, I guess the only thing I can do is wait for the spot-check/source reviewer. Anyway, I really appreciate your feedback, and many thanks for your time. I'm so sorry for that. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to apologise for -- I think you've done a good job with the article, and FAC is always about finding areas where it can be further improved -- as it says at the top of the page, it's taken as read that the article has lots of good things about it, because it would hardly have got to a nomination if it didn't! UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks! Well, I guess all I had to do was hope that the spotchecker wouldn't find significant issues since we all tried our best with it. Regards. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
When I said it "needs a good look", I had in mind that you would be the one to carry it out -- I'm talking about the next step in writing/polishing the article, not in reviewing it. If I were you, I would read over again the sources that talk about sexuality/sexualisation, find out what they base their comments on, and build that into the article. If you find that it's not based on a whole lot, then the article itself needs to reflect that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The sexuality/sexualisation part is at 2nd and 3rd paragraph right? I will admit that these sources are kinda complicated, but I will try to take a look and check it again for the 3rd time. Thanks again 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The issue is the overall flow of what is and isn't in the article, so I would look at the article as a whole, once you've reviewed the sources. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I already checked the sources from 2nd-3rd paragraph and made several changes. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Update: My co-nominator already checked what I rewrote and he is already satisfied. Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
@UndercoverClassicist Would you able to continue your review? People might wonder why we haven't finished yet. Sorry for badgering. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviews don't necessarily end in a statement of support or opposition -- here, I don't think I have anything to add to what I've already written. It's good that your co-nominator is satisfied with the text, but in my opinion the substance of what I wrote in the review remains true. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
@UndercoverClassicist Thanks. Your feedback was very helpful since you were absolutely right that some sentences at the reception before needs to be rewritten. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
@UndercoverClassicist Hi again. Hope you're fine and sorry for badgering you. The reception section went a lot of changes because other reviewers and I thought that you might want to recheck if you can? Thank you! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I've seen David Fuchs' comments in the review -- he is an excellent reviewer (and indeed writer), and I would encourage you to look carefully at his advice. On the reception section itself, I think what I wrote previously remains true, though David has put his finger on some points that I had not articulated so well, such as the balance between quotation and synthesis: there's a lot of voices but not really enough supporting material for the reader to make sense of the conversation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
We did made some changes at his main concern about the design and appearances section though. If he still disagreed then I guess I'll give up. Also, tagging SchroCat 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see those issues in the most important comment he has left you -- I'll take the liberty of breaking it into bullet points.
I'm not sure most of my issues above have been addressed.
  • The tense issues in the reception section remain.
  • The point that Ada was just a random name thrown into RE1 that was repurposed is still unclear.
  • The article as a whole repeats itself heavily, with the Concept and design section mostly being an in-universe description of the character in its appearances, before those appearances are elaborated on further afterwards in the Appearances section;
  • The changes to this section just make it more confusing since:
    • It spends its time talking about the games in a non-chronological sense
    • It's missing a lot of context ("Ada's red side-split dress, choker, and high heels from the original version of the game were replaced for the 2023 remake of Resident Evil 4" for instance, tells us what her revised design was not, rather than what it was.)
  • I think there's an overuse of quotes that obfuscate the meaning rather than clarify. * I'm not sold the layout of the article is the best way to present the information to a casual audience. I'm regretfully going to oppose since I don't think this is something to be addressed in the scope of FAC.
It's entirely your right to disagree, of course, but you're not going to change anyone's mind by simply doing so. I noticed with a few of my suggestions, you replied to the effect of "I and my collaborators think it's fine" -- that's as may be, but to get an article through FAC, you need to bring the reviewers on board as well. I'm not saying that this applies to you, but I think some nominators see FAC comments as challenges that need to be met (or dismissed, or otherwise "beaten"), rather than as ideas to work with and opportunities to build support for promotion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Boneless Pizza!, I am travelling from tomorrow, but I will try to get a review done today. I have had one quick readthrough and I think I probably support what both Dave Fuchs and UC have both articulated, but, of course, I could be wrong. If I do agree with them both, it would leave the nomination a long way short of a consensus to promote, which is, I am sure, not what you want. I really do advise you to withdrawn and go through the comments you've had up to now to see what can be used to improve and strengthen the article. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh well, I guess you guys were right as I don't think continuing this discussions would help us but waste our time. But, can I perhaps wait for Fuch's reply before withdrawing it in order for us to resolve the issues outside of FAC after withdrawing? I aplogize that I ended up wasting a lot of people's time here. I really doubt we can pull this up like it did with its related article, Jill Valentine. I'm not so sure if setting up peer review would attract more attentions. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you will have wasted people's time if you use their reviews to improve the article further. Use the comments from the PR and the FAC as a "basis for an improvements list" and you will be able to bring this up to a much higher level than it is now. - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed -- it's not a failure if the article doesn't get through FAC on a given nomination, and the process almost invariably does a lot of good for the article and, hopefully, the people involved in working on it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawing it now. But yeah, despite the concerns above I still don't understand what to fix exactly. I feel like I really want reviewers to be really specific in every detail for me to figure it out. I would like to thank you all for being sincere. I will set up the peer review again soon as its too unhealthy for me to continue again and perhaps pinged all the opposing reviewers first before re-nominating it again soon. If you guys want to share your issues, feel free to put it into Talk:Ada Wong. Thanks and regards 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
(Replying here versus my talk page) Boneless, I'm first going to point out first that there's no "FAC policy". FAC is a user-driven process, it's not a part of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Beyond that, there's no requirement that a reviewer list every single thing they take issue with. There's cases where FACs stall out because a reviewer finds issues, the nominator responds, the user finds more issues, and it goes on in a death loop. That's very much not what FAC is supposed to be about—it's supposed to be a way of polishing up articles that are nearly there and are presumed overall quite good. The process tends to drag these days from when I started participating years and years ago for a bunch of reasons, some very good (standards have risen dramatically) and not good (people I think are afraid of registering opposes because they don't want to feel harsh or judgmental of others' work, peer review as a process often isn't actually an effective place to get cold feedback) but ultimately it's not supposed to be peer review, and if there are issues that reviewers think are substantial that's a sign that it should probably get workshopped outside of FAC (and GAN to a lesser degree.) If you do fundamentally disagree with a reviewer, you can also note that on the FAC and coordinators will factor that in; there are times when you simply won't see eye to eye with others and it makes more sense to leave it as is and solicit other opinions rather than trying to go back and forth.
Like Undercover mentions, FAC is about the nitpicks and the criticisms, because it's assumed you already have a good article to start, and it's an issue that lots of people have and burn out on the process because of it. I don't think the Ada Wong article can never become FA-quality. Character articles are hard—probably the toughest video game-related articles to write. Reception sections are tough for virtually any subject that has them. There's no one-size fits all approach and FACs also depend on who shows up to them, so some are going to be better articles with a more rigorous process than others, so I would focus less on Jill Valentine and more on what sources and content you have for this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. I already knew before that video gane characters tend to be more harder than just other fictional character articles. Sometimes its ridiculous that articles like Mario Party DS wasn't really scrutinized and the it was promoted despite that there are visible issues like ref bombing and etc. I can see that both you and UC are getting busier when the day progress. Hopefully both of you can weigh in soon when the peer review started after pinging all the opposers in that page soon. Many thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi again UndercoverClassicist and David Fuchs, sorry for bothering. I recently finished Aoba47's review at peer review and thought that the reception has improved and could you use some eyes. Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Broun

The article Thomas Broun you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas Broun for comments about the article, and Talk:Thomas Broun/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Gilliéron

Hi there. I've added a handful of sources to the reference list of the Gilliéron article, which I expect to cite over the next few weeks as I add some of the information I've learned from reading the essays in the Olympisme catalogue. Feel free to adjust anything that you think needs fixing to bring it into line with WP style, both in the citations and in the prose, when I get around to adding it. No need to consult with me first; I trust your judgment. All I ask is that you give me a heads-up if you disagree about the actual content (on grounds of accuracy, appropriateness, weight, etc.).

Citation question: Does the cite book template provide any way to cite the author of a chapter within a book that is authored (not edited) by someone else? Paul Wolters wrote the foreword to the first volume of Die Antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen by Graef and Langlotz, but the only way I could find to include Wolters's name as the author of the forward was to list Graef and Langlotz as the editors of the work, which is incorrect. (Graef was already dead when the first volume appeared, so he certainly wasn't an editor.) The main body of the work was prepared by Graef and Langlotz, and it is always cited that way, even though Wolters (and others) helped to see it through publication. But if I list Graef and Langlotz as the authors, there seems to be no way to credit Wolters specifically with the foreword. I guess what I'm asking is if there is any way to suppress the notation "(eds.)" in the listing of the volume authors (as opposed to the chapter author). I suspect this is just a limitation of the template, but I figure if anyone knows a workaround, it would be you. Choliamb (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi -- excellent job there; I had half a mind to polish that article up for a future FAC, and had tentatively put it on my to-do list to go through the sources you'd flagged up and see what can be added from them.
On the citations, yes -- use the |contributor-last1= (etc) and |contribution= parameters, and then keep |author-last1= etc and |title= for the author of the main work. For example: Knox, Bernard. Introduction. Aeneid. By Virgil. Fagles, Robert (ed.). Penguin Classics.. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) and (edit conflict) You beat me to the explanation, UC! Choliamb, you can use the following:
{{cite book| contributor-last=Wolters| contributor-first=Paul| contribution=Vorwart| last1=Graef| first1=Botho| last2=Langlotz| first2=Ernst| title=Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen| publisher=De Gruyter| place=Berlin| volume=I |date=1925| at=cols. i–xxxvi}}
this renders as
Wolters, Paul (1925). "Vorwart". Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen. By Graef, Botho; Langlotz, Ernst. Vol. I. Berlin: De Gruyter. cols. i–xxxvi.
Then you can use sfn|Wolters as before. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Contributor it is. Thanks to both of you. Choliamb (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

FAC

You kindly made a suggestion or two on my talk page while I was preparing the article on The Importance of Being Earnest for FAC. It is now at FAC, and any further comments you may have will be greatly appreciated, if you are inclined to look in. Tim riley talk 21:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments left -- I think the only "big" one is the treatment of Craft and the literature on the play as queer literature; most of the rest are the usual nit-picks and pedantic bits of MoS. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred Biliotti

On 3 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Biliotti, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Biliotti. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alfred Biliotti), 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) 03:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Kbsknives (15:24, 3 September 2024)

how do i post a article about my brand or website? --Kbsknives (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- this is generally considered not to be a very good idea, and most people who do it end up disappointed, either because the article is deleted (as it usually is) or because it does not turn out as they would like it to. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Apocalyptic comments

Although you got quite a bit of pushback from the author, your FAC comments on the Apocalypse of Peter were stellar, both on content and on points of style. I was doing a little aimless bedtime browsing just now and I ended up reading them all. I don't know how you find the time to do such thorough, sensible reviews for what seems like every second or third nominated article, no matter what the category, while still writing so much excellent content of your own. I have too many reservations about WP to donate much time and energy to it, and most of the classical and archaeological articles are such absolute crap that it seems pointless to try to improve them. But your contributions are always an exception, and the amount that you've accomplished in just a couple of years is really impressive. As I'm sure you've noticed, I usually take the time to comment only when I have criticisms or suggestions for improvement, which can make me seem even more churlish than I actually am, so I thought I'd make an exception and tell you straight out how much I admire what you do here, even when I nitpick over some of the details. Choliamb (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you -- and if I could return the compliment with a completely unsolicited one, can I put on record how much I enjoy and appreciate your reviews, corrections and explanations when they come in. It's very rare to have a reviewer who knows the topic well enough to pick up the sort of points you do, but you do a remarkable job of being thorough and rightly critical without ever being unkind, and of pointing me in the right direction to fix things.
It's definitely a fair observation on Wikipedia's classical articles, and perhaps on our articles more generally -- when they're good, they're very good, but the best of them tend to be obscure little articles on someone's particular interest: paradoxically, it often seems to be the most important ones that need the most work, and those are also sometimes the hardest to improve. I've been slowly working on a sort of audit, based on the sources required for the British GCSE in classics (an exam offered to school students at the age of 16) -- it's quite sobering how much work would be needed to turn that list into a really useful introductory resource to the subject. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Creativeshaku (20:15, 5 September 2024)

hello, i want to edit pages related to education and mathematics, how can i start doing that --Creativeshaku (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Proskatka (06:31, 6 September 2024)

I m not able to publish edited article --Proskatka (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Church of St John of the Collachium

On 9 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Church of St John of the Collachium, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Church of St John of the Collachium was said to contain the hand of John the Baptist, a bowl used by Jesus, and a piece of the True Cross? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St John of the Collachium. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Church of St John of the Collachium), 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) 00:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Michel Barnier

On 10 September 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Michel Barnier, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 00:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Acosnath (21:44, 10 September 2024)

Hi, I made this account with the purpose of working to update my college professor's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Regal Is that acceptable in regard to Wikipedia rules? Additionally, I'm aware I can't go off of just what he says for it without sourcing, but is his personal website acceptable to pull info from(such as at least from gathering references)? https://sites.google.com/a/kean.edu/brian-regal-phd/welcome And how much can I take details from speaking to him personally? Finally, can you give any advice as to how I'd undertake this project? To be clear, this isn't for any sort of assignment or anything, and I don't plan to go super in-depth, but I would like to update things at least as it's out of date. --Acosnath (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- fair warning first, it's generally very difficult to write about people you know personally, for various interlocking reasons. There's also a very real risk of the article ending up not to your taste, particularly if you do (or indeed don't) particularly like the person it's about.
With that said:
  • In principle, there's no reason why you can't update the page of someone you know, as long as you make sure all of your edits are neutral in their point of view and verifiable from good sources. In particular, make sure you avoid promotional or vague language.
  • In general, a person's own website is not a useful source -- there are some exceptions, such as verifying absolutely trivial information (like a date of birth, dates of employment and so on) or if it's useful to quote their own views on a topic (for example, how somebody describes their own areas of academic research).
  • You won't be able to include anything that can only be sourced from speaking to the person, but that might help you if a source is unclear, or if two of them appear to be contradictory.
I hope this is helpful -- in all honesty, it is meant to sound slightly discouraging, but do let me know if I can help with this or another project on here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 64

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024

  • The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Wikimania presentation
  • New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Freston

Hi, UC. You expressed some interest in Great Wilbraham (causewayed enclosure) when I brought it to FAC, and were kind enough to review it. I'm thinking of nominating Freston (causewayed enclosure), perhaps after my current nomination comes off the FAC page, and I was wondering if you had any interest in taking a look at it before it gets to FAC? If not, no worries; and either way I'd be glad to do a review for you if there's anything you'd like another pair of eyes on -- I've had the benefit of more than one of your detailed reviews and would like an opportunity to return the favour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course -- I'll give it a read and leave some comments on Talk. Looks like another interesting site -- I'd be fascinated to know how it came to be that a Canadian university ended up as the one digging a site within spitting distance of both Cambridge and London! I've had Ove Jørgensen sitting at FAC for a while: it's already benefitted from a few reviews, but hasn't had much movement in a couple of weeks, so I wonder if the coordinators are waiting to see if more people can chime in on it. At any rate, your reviews have always been incisive and greatly appreciated. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Sure -- I'm a bit surprised that hadn't been promoted yet, but perhaps as you say the coords were looking for another set of eyes. I've posted the few nitpicks I could dredge up on Jørgensen; feel free to ping me again if you need another review somewhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Broun

On 14 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Broun, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Broun has been blamed for inflating the number of beetle species in New Zealand? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Broun. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Broun), 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, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Fremantle, 4th Baron Cottesloe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Bird.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

A Four Award for you!

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Ove Jørgensen. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Ove Jørgensen

Congratulations, UndercoverClassicist! The article you nominated, Ove Jørgensen, 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) 00:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Church of St John of the Collachium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Church of St John of the Collachium 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 Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Church of St John of the Collachium

The article Church of St John of the Collachium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Church of St John of the Collachium for comments about the article, and Talk:Church of St John of the Collachium/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi UndercoverClassicist, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Heilong11107 (05:21, 25 September 2024)

Hello Im new here so you can teach me how to edit --Heilong11107 (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Campbell pogrom

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Campbell pogrom 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 Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jørgensen's law

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jørgensen's law 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jørgensen's law

The article Jørgensen's law you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jørgensen's law for comments about the article, and Talk:Jørgensen's law/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity

I have finally nominated the article. Please take a look if you can: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive1. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, it's me again. Just call me a glutton for punishment, but I would like to ask you look over History of Christianity again since changes have been made. The article needs to be among WP's best because of its importance, and it has been a lot for one person. If you could find the time to help, it would be wonderful. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I can see you're working hard on it: honestly, I think the essence of my comments at FAC still stand, though a lot of the points of detail are now changed. The article still has a long way to go to bring it into the (extremely high) standards of FAC for prose, MoS, command of the current scholarship and neutrality. I'm sorry to be negative, but I really would reiterate the advice I and others gave you earlier in the process: I think your efforts would be much better spent on a different article, and that continuing to push this one to FAC is going to be frustrating. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I can live with frustration. I can be criticized and ridiculed and embarrassed and whatever is necessary. This article is too important not to be FA. To me, this just means it needs input from the community. That's Wiki's strength, so coping with that is not a problem. I can take it, but I need something more than generalities.
I understand FA's standards are high. So help me reach them. Which era is your specialty? What specifically makes you think it has a "long way" to go in the areas you mention? That seems like it might be an overstatement, but I need to know.
I have an undergrad degree in religion and a year's worth of grad school. I've been writing on this topic for over thirty years. I have won awards for my writing and I read current scholarship - at least some - nearly every day. I use Grammerly to check everything I write before publishing. If I am doing something that is not MOS or neutral or current, I want to know. I need to know. But I need more not less. Be critical. Say whatever you feel the need to say. Don't worry about my frustration level. I need to know what - exactly - you see. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
It's up to you to take my advice or leave it — and listening to strange people on the internet isn't always the best idea — but I've given you the advice I can, I'm afraid. Best of luck with whatever projects you choose to work on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
If you can offer criticism that terminates a nomination, you can do the same when it might help. Your input could be what moves the article closer to what it needs to be. Please. I'm begging. I'll owe you a favor - and I always pay back favors. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
But your advice is give up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Linguistic Barnstar
I should've given this to you a long time ago, but I have found the right words more difficult to find than I thought. I wanted to give my sincere thanks for your help in getting Weise's law to FA status; your guidance at GAN was indispensable to me – not just then, but now – and the fact that you continued to be involved with a page you had virtually no authorship in as it went through PR and FA is a testament to your commitment to Wikipedia as a whole and should serve as a benchmark for what editor retention aims to be. I don't think that it would be excessive to say that your involvement in the page has in large part encouraged my participation on Wikipedia and I know that without you, there would still be no historical linguistics FAs. In a word, thank you; you have taken Wikipedia from a place where I fix commas to a small home for me. ThaesOfereode (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
This is incredibly lovely -- though perhaps plays down just how impressive your own work on Weise's law has been, both in terms of the philological knowledge required and the challenges of communicating to Wikipedia audiences. I honestly think it represents the best of his place: someone with real knowledge of a topic putting in the (often thankless) work to make an article that's probably just about as good a reference as exists on the subject, and which anyone can use for free. I hope there will be many more to come. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Tremendously kind, thank you; I really do feel like this is a place where my years of reading can be put to good use. And don't worry: I will be back at FAC before you know it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking for a GA to review...

Hi UC, I hope you're keeping well. I enjoyed your GA review of Edward Dando so much, I was wondering if you had the time and inclination to take on another new article I've recently finished and popped up for GA: Littlehampton libels. It's another footnote to a footnote of history, but an interesting little piece of social interaction from the 1920s. No problems if you're swamped or whatever, but your reviews are always so good, it would be great if you are able to manage it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- I was going to pick this up, but then I saw that it is in the very capable hands of PMC. Do let me know if/when it arrives at FAC: I'll certainly give it a look then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi UC, It's now at FAC. If you have any time to go through it, it would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Some info on Vidal's portrait

Hello once again! I was the one who uploaded to commons the portrait of Leon Vidal. The photographer is unknown, however i know that the reporter of rizospastis was Takis Fitsos as you can see here. However, i believe that it is unlikely that Fitsos took himself the portrait. Popular Punk (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- that's interesting; thank you. An unknown photographer is relatively good for us, as it means that the photograph is PD in Greece -- though even if we "credit" Fitsos, he died in 1949, so 70 years PMA is 2019. I'll be able to use that when putting together the Fair Use Rationale for it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
thats great! If you have any other questions, feel free to ping me. Popular Punk (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for advice

Specifically for expanding the Lion of Cithaeron. I've gone through every source I could find (admittedly, not many) but it's still short. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- not my area, specifically, I'm afraid, but if you haven't already, you might want to check the "usual suspects" for classical literature and mythology -- such as:
  • The Oxford Classical Dictionary
  • The various Cambridge Companions (e.g. to Heracles) and Oxford Handbooks
  • Brill's New Pauly
I think all of these (except the OCD, possibly) are available on the Wikipedia Library: have you tried putting "Cithaeron" (and its variant spellings) into e.g. JSTOR, Academia.edu and so on?
Alternatively, I wonder if there are any commentaries on Pausanias or the Biblioteca that might have bibliography? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's not my area either. I'll try to check those sources when I have time- but I have a sinking feeling there won't be much to find. SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UndercoverClassicist/Archive_3&oldid=1258462792"