Hello, I'm Squeakachu. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Glossary of ancient Roman religion, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Squeakachu ( talk) 05:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Haploidavey. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Glossary of ancient Roman religion have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. 'Schmitz, "Augur"' is neither a proper source nor an inline citation. Haploidavey ( talk) 06:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Is “constructive” just your cute means to hide bias? I can’t see why the old interpretation of the word in question holds any more validity; in fact, it unnecessarily obfuscates an easy intuitable meaning direct from the Latin. Who here claims knowledge in the classics and Latin can show differently? We await. 2600:8807:5504:9200:6C60:8D54:8D19:9168 ( talk) 21:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply