User talk:Llywrch

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

Archive 1  · Archive 2  · Archive 3  · Archive 4  · Archive 5  · Archive 6  · Archive 7  · Archive 8  · Archive 9  · Archive 10  · Archive 11  · Archive 12  · Archive 13 · Archive 14 · Archive 15 · Archive 16 · Archive 17 · Archive 18

Happy New Year, Llywrch![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Moops T 17:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you take a look at an old edit of yours at Thebes?[edit]

A lot of unsourced stuff and an "It seems safe to infer". I got there looking for a legitimate date for when it became a city.[] which says 3000BC, which isn't in the article for the city.\

Thanks. Hate to be a pain. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: Sorry for the delay in responding. I meant to reply Thursday night here, but it slipped my mind & I only started checking my references on hand tonight. Anyway, my original edit (way back in 2003), was drawn from the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911, which gave a date for its foundation in the 14th century BC. And that was the date of its earliest fluorescence. However, checking a source more up to date -- the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd rev. -- I find that the experts date its foundation much earlier, to the Early Helladic II; according to Helladic chronology, EH II is dated to c. 2650-2200 BC. (That latter article provides another source for this date of the founding of Thebes.) So while Thebes was in existence before the 14th century BC, it definitely was not as early as 3000 BC. -- llywrch (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Frankly I think even modern versions of the Britannica are useless for archaeology, more or less useless for history. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Census GAN[edit]

Hello Llywrch, as the GAN reviewer of 2010 Zambian census, currently the only census article with GA status, I was hoping you would be able to review my article on the 1961 Indonesian census. If you can't commit to a full GA review, I'm happy to hear your feedback about the article as well, since you mentioned experience working with census returns. No pressure either way. Cheers! —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arsonal: I'd be happy to have a look. I might be a bit slow to complete the GA, however. I'll keep you informed. -- llywrch (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Sultanate of Dawe for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sultanate of Dawe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultanate of Dawe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

mi1yT·C 04:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aulus Didius Gallus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcus Aemilius Lepidus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emperor Tewodros mother[edit]

According to the Ethiopian chronics Tewodros mother was from Noble family in Gondar. The only source that mentioned her from Amhara sayint is from Hormuzd Rassam. 2A02:6680:110B:2E76:915F:D0FE:E4FD:5E65 (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC) sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 14:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are talking about Tewodros II, I haven't touched that article in years. I used the best source I could find at the time. -- llywrch (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benishangul-Gumuz Region, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Amole, Oromo and Damot.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fausianus or Faustianus[edit]

Saw your edit and note at LoRC. Perhaps this is too close to OR, but I note that the cited inscription is assumed to be missing a 't' that would have been part of the name. A search for "Faustian-" in the C-S Datenbank reveals 83 inscriptions in which this string occurs, and 0 with "Fausian-"; "Faustus" and related names are quite common throughout Imperial times, but "Fausi-" turns up only three inscriptions, and in none of these cases is it clear both that it was a name, and what the correct form of the name would have been, from which I conclude that "Fausianus" is not even remotely probable; i.e. there is no evidence that was ever a name, and even the existence of another name from which it could have been derived is doubtful. If a few examples turned up, they could still be misspellings for "Faustianus", but I cannot even find any examples that could be such a mistake. However, I will defer to your judgment—you're a better scholar than I am eight days out of the week. P Aculeius (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@P Aculeius: My note was only intended at completeness. It all started when I noticed an earlier list of consuls (Liebenam) called him "Faustinianus"; I then turned to Cooley (who is often cited in that list) & she gave his name "Faus[t]ianus"; seeking a third authoritarian opinion, I turned to Degrassi, who gave it as "Fausianus", with a pointer to this inscription. It was only after I looked at a couple of manuscript consul lists -- the Chronology of 354 & Hydatius' -- that I saw a split there too. (For the record, there are a number of rare or unusual names that later scribes "corrected" to more familiar forms, so the number of instances isn't as decisive as it might seem. If there was enough to create an article about the consul, this matter might be worth discussing.) So is his name actually "Faustianus" & the contemporary inscription a mistake (which happens), or is it "Fausianus" & later lists erred by correcting it to a more familiar form (which also happens)? I honestly don't know. In any case, there is good reason to record it as "Faus[t]ianus" until further inscriptions remove all doubt. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough! P Aculeius (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:711:C0D4:D49:5AC0:857:CB32 (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That inscription is for one L. Mummius Faustianus, not Nummius Faus[t]ianus. Names are almost identical, but not quite: for them to refer to the same person, the person who inscribed CIL XIV, 5357 would have to have made two mistakes, not one, which is tending towards special pleading. Unless you can find a reliable source that not only identifies the two but also plausibly explains the errors. -- llywrch (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh dear, the inscription says: consul ordinarius. How many consuls of that name do you think were consul ordinarius? There are actually two errors in the inscription. Sounds funny, but that's how it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:711:C0D4:8D64:B12C:F02B:596F (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what is your intent here, anonymous commentator? To improve Wikipedia, or to prove you're smarter than me for some reason I can't fathom? My intent with my edits was to show that the experts differ on his name -- & they have good reasons for that. Nothing more. I figure they know about that inscription, & likely have matched the name to another consul ordinarius. (One of the related websites date it to the last quarter of the 3rd century, later than Nummius Faus[t]inus' term holding the fasces.) There are many cruces in ancient history, & we are quibbling over a couple I doubt either of us know enough to solve. -- llywrch (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't you think logically? Do you know Google? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:70B:1B83:ADD3:BE6:D8BF:48AA (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leprosy & plague[edit]

I answered you question on leprosy talk page. Please review and let us discuss COM-03 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 2[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of historical earthquakes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pingyang.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 18[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goshu Zewde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Damot.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 3[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Riddle-tales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PMLA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Rulers of Sennar has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Rulers of Sennar has been nominated for 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the thanks![edit]

Thanks for your thanks re my comments. I'm going to your talk page actually because this nexus of the primary sources and basic facts just came up in the article Marcus Atilius Regulus (consul 227 BC) (which I just rewrote). What happend there I think further supports why my approach re basic facts and primary sources is the better one. Going through the edit history, there were two historical versions of the article which greatly differed on MAR's actions in 216 BC:

  • The older version c. 2008 is based on Livy. MAR is relived by the new consuls, pleads old age, and returns to Rome.
  • A newer version, c. 2011 is based on Polybius. Here, MAR joins the new consuls at Cannae only to die.

Here, Livy's version has to be preferred, as MAR is noted as censor in 214 BC (MRR 1.259, citing Livy 24.11.6 and the Fast. Cap.), even though Polybius is usually the best source for this period. The first editor got lucky. There are two sources and it's a coin flip. The second editor would have been much better served if he had read Klebs 1896 or consulted MRR, where this whole disagreement is sorted out instead of just replacing Livy with Polyb.

Otherwise he would have had to have actually read both (instead of assuming one of the older version was just wrong), recognised there was a legitimate disagreement, consulted Fast. Cap. and then further verified by consulting Val. Max. 2.9.8 (which confirms Fast. Cap.'s censorial pair; there's no date index in Val. Max. so one would just have to know). Ifly6 (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emperor Tewodros II[edit]

Hi, can you re-edit the page of Emperor Tewodros II? A lot of important information got removed from there including Tewodros mother origin. This is misinformation. Geysb819 (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you also own the account Gabi838r? -- llywrch (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sultanate of Dawe[edit]

Hello. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultanate of Dawe you were contacted as the creator of the article, yet you said you were not the creator. If you aren't the creator, who was? BTW, I was the one that flagged it as a hoax. I saw the references seemed fishy. 26zhangi (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a good question. As an admin, I could look at the deleted article's history & the earliest version has my username on it, with the comment "moved text; no guarrantees made about its reliability". So it had been created with another subject name I looked for the most likely previous name, "Sultanate of Dewe" which was also deleted, but it appears that the history of that article was lost when a page was copied over the existing redirect.
My guess is that whoever created the article is no longer active on Wikipedia. There were a lot of transient accounts contributing to Ethiopian topics back then -- & probably still are. -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1960 in Nyasaland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please undelete Melka Rafu. The reason given for deletion was not a valid reason for speedy deletion; you could just as easily have delinked the circular redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pppery:The redirect did nothing more than point back to the one article linked to it; there was nothing to delink. So common sense is not a valid reason to delete a redirect? -- llywrch (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Wikipedia's deletion processes are based on enumerated criteria, not individual admins' views as to what is "common sense". And redirects do not exist solely to be linked to. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I beg to differ. You've been around Wikipedia to be aware of the principle of ignore all rules. In this case, there was no point to this circular redirect: a person wanting information about this town is not helped by a redirect back to the article about the woreda it is located in. This is emphasized by a bit of research with Google. Although woredas are often named for their administrative centers, a Google search shows this woreda is not known by the name the CSA gave its chief town, but by an alternative name for the town, "Kombolcha". I found out more about this town by searching on the name "Melka Rafu" than the string "Kombolcha Oromia".
I would say that at this point instead of insisting on strictly following process, you need to prove why process should be followed -- other than because it is process. As the saying goes, "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life": slavishly following process without understanding it can only harm Wikipedia. And do you honestly believe if nominated for deletion, this redirect would have been kept? -- llywrch (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Article wizard/bioskeleton[edit]

Template:Article wizard/bioskeleton has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Lists of equites has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Lists of equites has been nominated for 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you put that comment in the right section[edit]

Hi, appreciate your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-11-20/Recent research. Am not asking for any changes, but I think you might have put your comment about the Harper essay at the wrong point in the discussion. Smallbones' introduction of the essay happens down the page a bit after "convenient break". ☆ Bri (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bri, which comment are you referring to? I made two on that talk page: one last week, & another a little while ago. -- llywrch (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This oneBri (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was the first time he mentions the Harper's essay, not below, so I thought it appropriate to add it there. -- llywrch (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:19th-century Ethiopian courtiers has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:19th-century Ethiopian courtiers has been nominated for merging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]