Hello Haploidavey,
You are on the list at
Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians#T. Are you back? Regards,
220
of
ßorg 07:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman aqueduct, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Censor.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed thoughts re the photos I uploaded and you deleted. I understand your reasons for doing so. Am really busy at the moment but will write to you soon (hopefully tomorrow) with all the details about the reconstructed Roman fashions. Cheers, John Hill ( talk) 07:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your supportive notes. Here is what I remember about the exhibition: My wife and I were in Taiwan when we visited a major exhibition of Roman antiquities mounted by the University of Florence/Firenze held at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial in down-town Taipei. I made a number of photos of some of the exhibits. From them I have been able to identify and upload photos of a number of statues from the exhibition to the WP.
About the "reconstructed Roman fashions" it was said they had been "reconstructed" from what they could learn from fragments of fabrics found in archaeological sites combined with what is known from paintings. Unfortunately, most of the notes on the exhibits are very fuzzy in my photos - though I have been able to decipher most by enlarging and sharpening them on my computer. Which leaves us with the question - are these fashion "reconstructions" worthy of inclusion in the WP?
You may be interested in checking out this official website about the exhibition: https://www.moc.gov.tw/en/information_197_76904.html.
I have just discovered a video of a fashion show including all the fashions I photographed. You can see it at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6HZ1RnGFwI
Other than that, I don't know what to say about whether the photos deserve to be in Wikipedia. I find them of real interest - and I think others may too - but I understand the necessity to have things of real notability only. Do you think that if I include the references to both websites as well, it would be enough??? Please give me your frank opinion. Best wishes, John Hill ( talk) 00:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman funerary practices, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diana.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roma (mythology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constantine.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ares, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pantheon.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ares, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thebes.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Drifting away from Talk:Ares, I wonder if Venus (mythology)#Epithets could usfefully be broken up into Roman and Syncretic? The first would be closer to the tighter definition of epithet (cf rosy-fingered dawn, Pythian Apollo) and the latter the interpretatio identifications. I see Epithets of Jupiter has much this approach.
At first glance Heliopolitan Triad, sourced only to a deleted page on a tourism website, wouldn't survive AfD. The source text can be found on other tourism sites but still shouldn't count as WP:RS. On the other hand, you yourself have pointed to other texts that refer to the idea of that triad, so someone might rescue the article by using them to describe it as a theory that's challenged. Of course you might do a better job of that than a passing ARS member. :) NebY ( talk) 19:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Haploidavey. Thank you for show me that the information was already on the article. I was wondering how we can imrpove it in order to remove that alert about the article may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. That's why I though if adding that part could help. Do you have any suggestion how we can improve that article? Thank you again for your help TL-WP-CA ( talk) 04:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your notice! P.S. This was only an edit mistake, will check preview before posting next time! (unsigned post, response to notice at User talk:Studious Human)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greek city-state patron gods, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olympia.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chariot racing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valentinian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations on finding Brinkmann's book... :-) I managed to fix the ref above malformed. LukeWiller ( talk) 22:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chariot racing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leda.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ares, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Argos.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
[1] quite cheered me up. NebY ( talk) 12:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
"Reasons given for restoration of Macrobius' inexpert etymologising miss the point. His opinion is part of the word's history, which is "fact" (that is, evidenvced by written sources) even when incorrect. I don't follow the editor's objection or reasoning. It seems to have rather missed the point"
You said this as reasoning to why you made that edit, but if that is true, a person could just add anything so long as it's apart of history. Why should anyone have to know that a person theorized "Saturn + Penis = Satyr" in opinionated theory. That's not relevant information. People could just get the wrong idea and think it's an actual thing. Even if it is apart of history that this person said this, that doesn't make it relevant. It's just a meaningless theory in comparison to something that was actually right like the part on the wiki that speaks about the "Sat" prefix and stuff like how the Satyr race was Romanized as Fauns and Faunus being related to Saturn.
It's really a pain to just see how that connection between Saturn and Satyr get dumped on when you google between the two. No other place used that piece of information just because of its irrelevancy except for here. But with my edit, it shows what should be the thing shown to people when they google Saturn and Satyr that's relevant https://files.catbox.moe/2063nr.PNG
Hello, I see on your user page that you use JSTOR and I'd like to know more about your experience. By my calculations, a good 70 % of the main JSTOR content is now available for everyone at Internet Archive Scholar, with full text search provided e.g. at https://scholar.archive.org/ . The service is still in beta, but I've used it for some source-finding and it seems quite usable to me; I wonder whether that's just my experience. If you have a chance, the next time you'd be looking for a source on Google Scholar or JSTOR or similar, to perform the same search on IA scholar instead, I'd be curious to hear how it ends up. Thanks, Nemo 19:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Haploidavey ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I've been blocked from editing at Religion in ancient Rome and everything else, except this talk-page, for no apparent reason. Thanks in advance.
Decline reason:
This account has no direct blocks on it and those pages are not protected. Yamla ( talk) 17:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sorry but it was and is blocked. Pages opened for editing tell me I can't edit, and place the following om my talk-page.
Haploidavey ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 194.37.96.50_______. Place any further information here. Haploidavey ( talk) 17:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Ah. You are editing from a confirmed proxy. You need to disable your proxy/vpn and wait a full 24 hours, then you should be able to edit. Yamla ( talk) 17:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Oh dear. How do I disable my proxy/vpn? Will logging out for 24 hours do that? Haploidavey ( talk) 17:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in ancient Rome, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Libera and Julian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
When I am able to log in for my actual account of which I have over 500 edits, contributed monthly through donations for years and have been a member an equal time. I fully intend to audit every page associated with the perpetuation of racism. Your insistence on pushing false information is both disturbing and saddening. Spectemur Agendo! EyesNeedle ( talk) 08:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Venus (mythology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amor.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ceres (mythology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libera.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
OK im sorry Akaora ( talk) 12:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romulus and Remus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanesque.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
You are either quibbling over the word “ while” (unlikely) or you did not revert what you thought you reverted. Either way, I suggest you take another look. Good luck. Kleuske ( talk) 10:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, The revision I made to the Spartacus page referenced a connection to the film Gladiator (2000) and I used that film's Wikipedia page as a citation, which directly mentions the historical character of Spartacus. Please review this and perhaps correct my edit in a more suitable way. Thank you. Tenamazti ( talk) 07:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello mr Haploidavey please I know what Im editing. Hermes sometimes was worshipped as a winter god. Besides my teacher from my highschool told me that. You have to believe me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:1F09:5400:3154:20D4:CF79:C3BA ( talk) 16:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
I found Roman funerary practices very interesting and comprehensive. Thanks for all the work you obviously put into it! 199.208.172.35 ( talk) 21:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC) |
First, let me say that one of the things I most miss about contributing to Wikipedia is collaborating with you. And amen to the Barnstar above. I happened upon that article by accident recently and wondered how it managed to be so sound, then thought "This has Haploidavey's style all over it" and was pleased to be found right in the history. I've thought of you and other congenial Wikipedians over the years with much admiration and indeed affection.
But I try not to look at anything now but articles for "almanac" kinds of information (with exceptions below), as I wearied of the combat.
I'm working on something outside, however, that brings me at times to Sexuality in ancient Rome to scavenge for some sources I used there, and I'm concerned that the article is becoming a repository of images not necessarily chosen to illustrate a particular section. An uncharitable view would be that contributors enjoy publishing the dirty pictures those naughty Romans made; or to be more charitable, maybe they are happily discovering the vast trove of Roman erotica and generously sharing it with The World. For example, a wall painting of rear-entry sex is now placed in the section on Epicurean (Lucretian) theories of sex. This is potentially apt, but currently the illustration belongs in the positions section (illustrations of which are now scattered randomly throughout) with the mention of Lucretius's view of the "doggy" position as more likely to promote conception. Or it should have a caption that relates it to the Epicurean section in which it currently appears, such as the statement from the article that "Lucretius recommends 'doggy style' for couples trying to conceive," though it would still strike me as unduly prurient in the philosophy section.
Too many images, especially those not corralled into galleries, throws off the alignment of those actually chosen to illustrate the topic. It does seem rather otiose to chose images that may be interesting but are offered without textual context. Some images repeat content already illustrated by images. If a better illustration exists of that which is described, then an image ought to be replaced. If an image depicts something that is inadequately covered in the text, or enlarges on the text, then the caption needs to be more informative (and supported by a note if it's adding verbal content). "Erotic art of ancient Rome" would of course make for an extensive article of its own, if done with the intellectual discipline of an editor such as Johnbod. A caption such as "Wall painting from Pompeii" may be informative enough if the image is placed directly adjacent to text that describes what we are seeing. It is uninformative elsewhere if the caption doesn't explain why the image is chosen.
I'm not suggesting that you raise your shield, though I suppose it would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge what a good defender you are. (That "Do I?" in a conversation above tickles me more than it should.) I'm just saying that the importance of Wikipedia has grown (I'm a bit appalled at its privileging by ChatGPT and the like) to an extent that requires a more methodical approach that acknowledges, for example, that images are a form of content, and their inclusion ought to be justified just as that of text is.
I was also saddened by the misguided revision of the opening sentences in Languages of the Roman Empire by someone who apparently doesn't understand the importance and role of Greek in the Roman Empire as distinguished from the Republic, which means that this someone hasn't actually read and understood the article and how Greek versus Latin is one of the clearest expressions both of the formation of an entity we call an "empire" that drew of the remains of Alexander's and for the ultimate schism of that empire into Western and Eastern. Latin was not the "official" language of the Roman Empire in the sense in which the editor probably means, given the assertively ugly little box at the top, and this assertion is not cited; in fact, the article states "Latin was NOT imposed officially on peoples brought under Roman rule," with citation. So this is undue emphasis, and the assertion is neither sourced nor supported by the article. If one searches the word "official" in the article, the position supported by the actual sources manifests, and it emerges that Latin was used in official communications such as imperial edicts and written laws (and therefore in the Roman army), which as you know relates also to the keeping of religious records and the Roman legalistic emphasis on precise wording. The situation does not meet the definition of official language, and the linguistic situation in fact expresses the characteristic pluralism of the Roman Empire. Surely this grievous and to my ears chauvinist misconception IN THE FIRST SENTENCE did not occur during a GA review?
I wish I could enjoy contributing to Wikipedia occasionally because I miss it and I miss the Greek and Roman crew, but I will probably never get over how much intellectual blood was spilled over the birthday of Marcus Antonius, a mortifying talk page, fortunately archived, that belongs on the list of infamy, though I can't remember what WP calls the page where those tempests in a teapot are immortalized.
Logging off and signing out. Best wishes to you always, my friend! Cynwolfe ( talk) 19:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
why do you say restored revision instead of undid revision? Ghost Cacus ( talk) 17:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your edits [2] [3]. Please notice that you summarized your edits as revertings of my edits, when in fact you reverted this and this edits. If that's ok, I'll ask the Administrators to hide your edit summary. פעמי-עליון ( talk) 18:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
So I saw some reservations you expressed somewhere about new interface stuff. The one I'm most perplexed by, if you could possibly save me buckets of time figuring it out, is why the heck there are now some 4,000 things on my watchlist. I see article pages listed that I am quite certain I did not mark to watch. Does this question make any sense? I haven't checked my watchlist for, oh, maybe as long as eight years, so a change in its composition would not need to be recent! Cynwolfe ( talk) 20:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Oy Yo... have you had a look at the Guidance notes for Watchlist use and management?? See Help:Watching pages Haploidavey ( talk) 21:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Leoš Janáček has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. C 679 03:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I was just adjusting what was already there which was out of date. 32.214.191.219 ( talk) 22:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello mr Haploidavey. Ive just noticed that you deleted my edits. I asked sorry and forgiveness. Why you cant unblock me??? Im sorry but now I wanna help and I want to add or delete informations in pages so I can make them accurate. Wikipedia Is supposed to telling the truth 2A02:587:1F04:1700:509:BD1E:EA1F:5CAA ( talk) 12:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Davey, many many years ago we collaborated on various topics, I hope you still remember me, and I also hope you are still healthy and happy. You hepled me a lot at that time and I remember you were a well educated man with a sense of humor and with a great interest in ancient Rome. And this is important at the moment. I'm no longer very active on Wikipedia, as my profession now (I see it rather as a mission, btw) is that I'm a mayor of a small market town in South Moravia. Aside of my work as the administrator of my town (planning and realizing various improvements for better living of our people, making it a better place with sustainable future for our kids etc.), I have great interest in the history of the place where I live. I often write popular history articles for our local magazine. Some time ago, I found in the old press some marginal information about a gold Roman coin found in my town at the beginning of the 20th century. It's not that unusual in my region, there was a Roman fort near the place where I live (actually, I wrote the article about Mušov!). I suspect that many people with metal detectors, who often wander in the countryside around, store in their garages many treasures, and not only Roman. Great damage for history studies. It is a golden aureus from the era of the emperor Nero, dated 54-68 AD, similar to this one(?) At least the description in a source (I've never seen our coin) suggests it might be a very similar piece. My question is - do you have any knowledge about the historical background of the coin, or maybe about the inscription Ianum Clusit Pace Populo Romano Terra Marique Parta and its broader historical meaning? Maybe you could point me to interesting sources regarding this area? I'd appreciate any assistance with the topic and of course I'd cite you as a co-author if I'd write anything for our local paper. Unfortunately I can't provide more specific information, all I found is few mentions in old Czech historical journals.
Davey, do not waste your time if you don't have interest in my amateurish digging, it just came to my mind that you were probably the most educated person in the field of history of ancient Rome that I've ever met. Have a good time, old friend.
Thank you.
Antonín Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 11:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I just happened a second time upon the astonishing Commons category of Ancient Roman funerary steles in Timgad. I had meant to ask you the first time whether you had seen these or come upon something about them in researching Roman funerary practices. Can this possibly be built-in dishes for food offerings for the dead? I remember one time reading that Roman tombs might have a "feeding tube" for administering wine, but I had never seen anything like this before, and it isn't the only one on Commons. And look: the Christian fish.
Despite the bounty of photos the wonderful contributor provided, there is very little information given. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
★Trekker (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec23}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.
★Trekker ( talk) 10:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
P Aculeius (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Robin}} to your friends' talk pages.
P Aculeius ( talk) 13:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Here's to a 2024 full of intriguing discoveries …
I don't know what Father Time's looking at,
but I appreciate Wikipedia editors like you.
Cynwolfe (
talk)
Time (1810) by Pieter Christoffel Wonder
I'm not sure I'm doing this greeting card thing right, so I'm trying it first with you who have tolerated my previous defacements of your talk page … Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy 2024 | |
May it proceed in style!
NebY (
talk) 21:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
|
Hi, and thanks for your work on the rewrite. I think you should change the overall structure of the article, because right now we have:
- Early life
- Emperor
- Conflict with the Senate
- Modern depictions
I would reorder it as such:
- Family background and life before his accession.
- Reign, in a chronological order
- A thematical section on his policies, which would gather all the subsections from "public profile" to "ships at Nemi", perhaps the subsection "divinity" could go there as "imperial cult". This subsection is quite long, but also well sourced, so a separate article "Caligula's imperial cult" could be created.
- A separate section on sources and opinions, ancient and modern.
- Finally, a section "in Popular culture". T8612 (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
|}
Haploidavey ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I seem to have been included in a range bock
Decline reason:
You seem to be able to edit again. If you are affected by an autoblock in the future, please provide the IP address involved so we can look into the matter. If you don't want to post your IP publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to make a private unblock request. 331dot ( talk) 07:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{ unblock-auto|...}} Haploidavey ( talk) 07:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I really have no idea how these things (blocking and unblocking and things in between) work, but thanks for the crystal-clear advice on how to deal with similar things in the future. I'm very much old school, so clear instructions and personal intervention are much appreciated. Haploidavey ( talk) 08:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Block message:
original block message
am able to edit sandbox. Haploidavey ( talk) 09:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)}} Bitdefender shows IP 37.120.200.50 Haploidavey ( talk) 09:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I attempted to edit Caligula and seem to be autoblocked or range-blocked. Haploidavey ( talk) 09:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by JJMC89. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected . Start of block: 01:51, 22 April 2024 Expiry of block: 01:51, 22 April 2027 Your current IP address is 2a0d:5600:4e:a001:5449:7d68:be96:4f40. The blocked range is 2A0D:5600:40:0:0:0:0:0/44.
Have turned off VPN. Can now edit but vulnerable Haploidavey ( talk) 10:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)