Under my personal policy of "easier, simpler, better" I am organizing all entries under the correct user/paragraph and will be deleting old (and only old and out-dated mail, there will be no censorship) from time to time. It´s simply better for me to notice, find, understand and eventually to answer your mail. What can I say? I am simply lazy. Flamarande 21:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome. - JustPhil 17:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links showing how I did that merge you requested. I did it the other way round, with Transalpine Gaul redirecting to Gallia Narbonensis - if you disagree, let's discuss it at the talk page for Gallia Narbonensis. Anyway, the process (and I don't claim this is ideal or 'correct') was:

• remove text to merge into Gallia Narbonensis
• added text merged in from Transalpine Gaul
• remove merge tag after text moved here from Transalpine Gaul
• remove merge tag and create redirect to Gallia Narbonensis
• rewrite after merge from Transalpine Gaul to Gallia Narbonensis

The important point is to link to both articles in the edit summaries (links not shown above, but are shown if you follow the links). That makes it clear what is going on. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 16:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flamarande, sorry for not replying earlier - i've been away for a week and a bit. I don't have any real wisdom to share with the maps - I just loaded it up in an image editing program (GIMP in my case, since I was on a linux box, but even Microsoft Paint will do) and used the "bucket fill" tool, etc. Then saved as a png format to avoid losses. Good to see there's a couple of us trying to hold the fort on "AU" over at Western Europe ;-) Deuar 13:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Thanks for taking notice of the reversion on the Sextus Appuleius and Claudia Marcella pages.

However, I feel a bit hard done by in reference to the 'BC-BCE and AD-CE changes' question.

I try to only make changes to BC-BCE or AD-CE when more of the article is mine than what was previously there. As such, if I only make very minor changes, I will leave whatever usage of BC-BCE or AD-CE is there; conversely, if I significantly rewrite the article (to the point where pretty much all that is on the page is what I have written), then I think it is entirely fair that I use the whichever of BC-BCE or AD-CE that I prefer.

I have no problems with the BCE-BC and CE-AD reverts for Claudia Marcella and Octavia Major because I probably haven't made significant enough changes (and I did those early in my editing career).

However, on the Sextus Appuleius page, prior to my edit, there were 2 paragraphs, my edit changed that to c. 9 paragraphs. Essentially, everything that is now on that page is what I wrote, and so it seems to me that in that case, I should be able to use BCE instead of BC or CE instead of AD because it is pretty much a completely new article (just under the same title).

Now on the other hand, if the change was done for the sake of consistency, I'd be more okay with that...

)

Knobbishly (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and I have had a conflicting history, to say the least. However, I believe you are a valuable editor to the project. I admit I went a bit over the edge during the AfD(I was a noobie then) but here I see an oppurtunity for cooperation. Would you kindly lent your hand to help me improve this article?(I haven't been working on it in a while as I was on another project). Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I put resolved on the WP:NOR noticeboard on the above article? It seems the statements in question have either been removed or sourced. In any case, it is not a matter of OR, I believe.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flamarande. You have new messages at Arcayne's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. Both these articles need help, if your not too busy could you check them out, and check out the talk pages, thanks. --69.47.218.54 (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...we believe that Iran already has the capability of bombing targets in Israel, certainly with weapons ferried through Syria to be launched from Lebanon by the Hezbollah, besides any long-range weapons of its own. Capability? How about already? Much as I wistfully appreciated your analysis that Ahmedinejad is just a big talker trying as any politician to win popular support, I think that's awfully naive. Hitler was a big talker, a populist orator – and I don't have to tell you what he did as he gained popular support. I'd rather not discuss this further, but wanted to share some background with you. Also please note: as I'm a Ref Desks regular, I welcome contributions on Ref Desk threads but remind you it isn't intended as a discussion forum but to assist in finding information. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having read your clarifications, you'll find my concluding remarks there. I intend not to discuss this any further and hope I've succeeded in my intention to provide some insight of an Israeli citizen's viewpoint and not what's spouted by politicians. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see I find it truly funny that you first post "Hitler was a big talker, a populist orator – and I don't have to tell you what he did as he gained popular support". The true juice the first post was 'Ahmedinejad = Hitler'. As I pointed out that this comparison was simply wrong, you suddenly end up with a "How about if you relate to "backing some terrorist organizations" in light of what I wrote about the Iranian arms supply to Hezbollah that has already been used against us here in the Western Galilee. I termed your analysis "naive" because the nuclear issue wasn't the point, but the Iranian capability of hostile acts against Israel. I hope I've explained myself, and this is ending here." May then I ask you why you simply had to mention Hitler at all?

In the end the Iranian backing of terrorist organization is precisely the funding and supply of weapons and ammunition of Hamas and Hezzbolah which these organizations use. If someone is truly interested in peace let him negotiate a two state solution and that means the dismantling of the illegal Israeli settlements, return to the 1967 borders (Israel may build its new wall but upon the 1967 borders and not pushing the Palestinian territory a few kilometers back), and sharing the city of Jerusalem. All of this is the price of peace in the foreseeable future and circumstances. Flamarande (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC) PS: Thank God for Godwin's law.[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to comment there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you recent edit on this is ok, are you aware that we have a guideline for this at WP:ERA "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." - basically if an article starts with one system it should stay unless etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite puzzled by your edit summary here. Now my personal preference is the same as what is apparently yours (that is, I prefer BC/AD to BCE/CE). But the MOS says that en.wiki has no preference for one versus the other. Might I ask why this anon's edit inspired such venom from you? Unschool 13:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because you left this comment on an edit on Lilith: "Repairing unilateral change made by 216.165.24.57. It was done withot following proper protocol, showing enourmous disrespect towards previos editors and increased the size of the article needlessly." I see that this has already been brought up above.

Whatever you think was wrong with that edit, that reply is simply uncalled for. I see nothing in there showing anything like any disrespect toward anyone, and the size increase of the article (only 24 characters!) was trivial in the extreme. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but all I can come up with is that you irrationally hate the terms "BCE" and "CE" and took your aggression out on the editor who added them. Please try not to overreact in the future, and you might also consider apologizing to the newbie in question. DreamGuy (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sole and honest answer to the two posts above is the following: the only contributions [1] of that anonymous contributor consist in changing the dating system of the article Lilith from BC/AD towards BCE/CE (this can be seen clearly here [2]). Said person could not bother itself with announcing, requesting, debating, or asking at all for the change on the article's talkpage. The contributor couldn't even bother himself into giving a bloody edit summary announcing his changes. That contributor did nothing constructive for Wikipedia at all.

I have noticed this trend in several article: dozens upon dozens of contributors slowly improve articles using the BC/AD (or BCE/CE) system right from the start. I have little doubt that some of these contributors would have liked to change said system towards BCE/CE or BC/AD. However they don't change it as they see the wisdom of avoiding revert/date system wars. Nearly everybody knows the compromise: "don't change the system without debating the matter on the article's talkpage first". However a small number of common vandals keep on changing the dating systems towards one or the other hidden under the cover of anonymity. IMHO the damage made by these pitiful anonymous vandals should be repaired with extreme prejudice. In my honest opinion their behaviour and changes show disrespect towards the work of the previous editors. You two (and many more) might disagree with my reasoning but that's life: most of us will disagree on many issues.

As for the comment of DreamGuy that "you irrationally hate the terms "BCE" and "CE" and took your aggression out on the editor who added them". I can only reply with the following: irrational hate is an extremely strong and exaggerated description for my edit summary. I haven't insulted the anonymous contributor, harassed his user/talkpage in any way, or reported his "contributions/minor vandalism" (and I don't intend to do any of these actions - I'm way too civilized to do that). I'm also not considering an apology to that "contributor".

When somebody news makes such a change and also something constructive I explain this matter on their talkpage in a civilized matter.

If anyone cares to examine my edits/contributions he will find many such reverts. However I never imposed BC/AD upon a former BCE/CE article (there was a single incident - a honest mistake). My favourites reverts, edit summaries, and explanations are:

• [3]
• [4]

Not wanting to hide my personal stand on the BC/AD vs BCE/CE conflict

• I'm in favour of using BC/AD. I'm an atheist living in the Western world but I'm not an anti-Christian zealot.
• BC (Before Christ)/AD (Anno Domini) is simply the most widely used dating system in this world. Nobody can reasonably argue against that fact. In fact, they are only really used when somebody is writing about ancient history (mainly to help the average reader and not to impose any religious views upon the reader).
• We live in a increasingly globalized World which as a whole was and still is culturally dominated/influenced by Western civilization if anyone likes it or not. As such the world simply uses the western calendar and that means BC/AD to a overwhelming extent.
• What is BCE (Before Current Era) and CE (Current Era) in my honest opinion? It's simply a pitiful measure of political correctness and nothing more. It is something like this: "we are going to use the religious neutral "BCE/CE", so that we and everybody else can still use the western calendar and "reasonably" deny its cultural and religious origins in order not to hurt the personal feelings of NON-Christians."
  • Nobody with a working brain is going to fall for that one. Does anyone for a second believe that a atheist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or any non-Christian is going to be offended in his personal sensibilities by the use of AD/BC? He will be offended only if he wants to be offended by it. If he is offended he will use another calendar. Most of us will be offended (as I am) by this pitiful attempt to deny the impact of Jesus of Nazareth and his teachings upon world history in the name of political correctness or worse, that "you" think that we are ignorant fools and don't know this and that we will be deceived by the use of BCE/CE.
• As far as I can judge this matter BCE/CE is something invented and mostly used by Americans. We shouldn't blindly copy their political correct bullshit - "Death to the American dogs! (joke)".
• As a matter of fact BCE/CE isn't being recognized by the automatic text corrector of Firefox. I can only conclude that BCE/CE is not a common feature of the English language. To change the English language for the sake of political correctness is simply disgusting.
• I am not telling anyone that Christianity is good or bad for that truly depends upon one's personal POV but its cultural influence (good and bad) upon the world is simply undeniable.
• Ppl who use BCE/CE didn't invent another calendar confusing a lot of readers who never saw CE/BCE before (it honestly confused me). They are simple "twisters" (they want to twist something around their own personal views)
• The compromise in Wikipedia is reasonable and should be respected. Sneaky changes are to be reverted with extreme prejudice. Flamarande (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Flam, for taking the time to give such a comprehensive reply. And while I don't necessarily agree that your edit summary is called for, I am convinced that you are sincere in believing that you are justified in doing these reverts with "extreme prejudice". I don't personally think you will advance the project with such summaries, but hey, I've been wrong at least as often as I've been right. Sorry that these folks have gotten under your skin.

By the way, though I do, as I said earlier, prefer the BC/AD system, I doubt very much that it will be around fifty years from now, except as an anachronism _{(ah, the irony of that being an "anachronism", eh?)}. Happy editing to you. Unschool 05:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This view was held fifty years ago, too; not to mention two hundred and more. If we live, I expect to be having this conversation in fifty years time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I hold that the way to deal with a revert warrior is to revert him; preferably many together, which is why I am willing to throw in one or two. If it meant interminable drama, it would be counterproductive, but 3RR is written to provide a nice cliff for our Wiley E. Coyotes to parachute over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you pretty familiar with ancient Roman history (Scipio, Cato, Gracchi and the like)?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More or less, but I'm truly little more than an amateur. Flamarande (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. That may be good enough. I may want to ask you a couple of questions then. Can you e-mail me?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can place your questions here. Anonymity is to treasured, and I'm not afraid of revealing the extents of my ignorance. Flamarande (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have too many trollers following me since I am an active editor, so I can not ask any controversial questions here live. Don't be surprised if some will even respond to this simple message. If you don't want to email, then that is alright. It just had to do with Scipio the Younger and Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus which I can probably get somewhere. I'm studying Plutarch's Lives and it probably is there.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IF you care to, could you give me your opinion of these writing. Something I found that I believe someone originally wrote in the fourteenth century. It seems to follow Plutarch's Lives fairly close (especially for Aemilius Paulus) as well as Livy's Histories and Polybius' Histories. They were obviously the sources, however not the author of these writings. Scipio's information came also from Plutarch and is backed up with Livy and Polybius records. You can answer in an email or here, whichever you prefer. Thanks for your input.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IF you care to, can you tell me if the Scipio and Aemilius Paulus writings at least make some sense to you. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can't help you. I read books written by modern historians (Goldsworthy, etc). I do not read the original ancient classics (have a few translations). As I said: I'm truly little more than an amateur. Flamarande (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks for your reply.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flamarande, I agree with you, but there's been a lot of dispute over the issue of what the Persian Empire article should do - see Talk:Persian Empire. Long story short, until recently it was a lengthy article which took the term "Persian Empire" to refer not to the empire of the Achaemenids specifically, but to any monarchy that ever ruled over Iran, and thus covered virtually all of Iranian history up to 1979. Over the last month or so, there's been some serious disagreements at the Persian Empire page about what exactly, the page should cover. The article is currently protected. I would agree that Achaemenid Empire should probably be moved to Persian Empire, but there's no consensus at the moment on that. You should feel free to weigh in on the matter on the talk page. john k (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at "Veni, vidi, vici".

From what I've been able to find out (Latin not being something I know much about) the mark in question is sometimes used in Latin dictionaries to indicate vowel length (though not used by the Romans themselves).

(This is not intended as a criticism of your edit at "Civis Romanus sum". I'm just sharing.) --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so the 'mark in question' is used by dictonaries to show how the word is pronounced correctly? It seems to me that these marcs act (more or less) like the international phonetic alphabet. However the orthograpical spelling of the word itself (and of the sentence) hasn't changed (right? Please correct me if I'm wrong here). Neither in Latin nor in English (it's clearly a sentence in Latin but can be used within an English sentence). Flamarande (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Thanks man, that was valuable info.[reply]

Don't just jump from 565 to 717. There must be a "Maurice" map to represent the large gains in Caucasian Iberia, but the erosion of holdings in Italy. Don't forget, the eastern border during Maurice's reign was the largest ever established by a peace treaty. So a date somewhere around 600 would suffice.--Tataryn77 (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Flamarande, I'm really sorry I mistook you for the person who first proposed the BCE (note, on Microsoft Word BCE is highlighted red as incorrect spelling) system. I do agree with you that BC/AD is the most commonly used, and should be kept. It was your rant that made me think you were User:Warrior, but now I totally understand why you got mad, so thanks for clearing it up on my talk page.

A second issue is the Persian empire to Achaemenid empire move, I really want you to consider another proposal that we make an article, though there might be one already that divides the various Persian empires into sections, which contain a paragraph about them, and a link to the MAIN articles which they come from. For example, in the Ancient Persia article, under the section Achaemenid Empire which is a paragraph long, there is a part where it say's Main article: Achaemenid Empire. Like this, check this out [5] or expand and change title of this [6] to Ancient Persia, following the Roman articles method.

Like we would have Persian kingdom (they started out as a group of more than ten Persian tribes, then became a province to satraps-united by Achaemenes-clan leader of the Pasargadae tribe), Persian Republic (Xenophon coined this phrase, that they were like a republican form of government, Athens-Sparta combined) Persian Empire or Achaemenid Empire. Remember, these are names used to refer to Persia; Pars, Parsa, Parsua, Parsaumash, Persia.

Or we could have (which I think is better than the above described system, as referring to the Ancient Persians);

Persian Tribes (1,000 BC or 844 BC[first mentioned on a Assyrian tablet] to 705 BC or 691 BC[first mentioned on a Assyrian tablet to have fought in a indecisive Battle of Halule, when they were various Persian tribes]).

Persian Kingdom[this is when they were fighting battles and gaining tiny bits of land from the Elamites, see Teispes] (705 BC or 691 BC to 550 BC[From the beginning of Achaemenes' reign when he united them into a kingdom, to right before it became an empire]).

Persian Empire (550 to 330 BC[Beginning of the empire to the end when it was conquered by Alexander the Great])

I know this might seem unusual or out of the ordinary, but this is just a rough draft, and working in progress proposal. If this can be done, a lot of things will be cleared up, with of course I will back it up with a pile of reliable sources in do order. So what do think about this proposal? Reply on my page, or start this on the Achaemenid Empire article, Thank you very much.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flamarande, before I go into discussing the issue that has to do with this section, I was just wondering whether you accept the Persian Tribes, Kingdom, Empire proposition, I know you want just Persian Empire (now I want that too), but what I am saying is that we have a Ancient Persia article that links (not a disambug, and contains a one paragraph description of each article) to those three articles, if you like this proposal then say yes or no and give a brief answer, that is all I asked.

Now, I want to be clear, I was originally in favor of Achaemenid Empire, but reading your argument for Persian Empire, I have sincerely realized that Persian Empire it should be (however I am totally open to the idea that Achaemenid can be used interchangeably-this is because I am a open minded person).

Finally I must say, I commend you for your very detailed and accurate argument for the Persian Empire, and I'll try to see if I can find any good sources that can help convince some users that it was Persian Empire. Note, before Achaemenes, what was the kingdom called? Blank Kindgom, no, it was the Persian Kingdom. This realization was the Duh! moment for me. Therefore I thank you for helping me see the correct terminology.--153.18.19.52 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back now, are any of the issues you raised on my talk page still things you want me to look at? Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following your editing of date conventions at Statue of Zeus at Olympia, I wonder if you could tell me a really tactful way to say that this is just not done at Wikipedia, one that would get the idea across but wouldn't result in a storm of insulting threats.

There's some text buried at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.

...but it doesn't seem to be very effective. If you can come up with a brief text that I might leave at Talkpages when this is required, I'd be very grateful if you'd post it at my talkpage. Thank you. --Wetman (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't helpful in the slightest. Can you please read through the request in full and understand why we are doing the statistic collection first, before reviving all the transliteration/population/language decrees/etymological arguments we've heard a hundred times before? If you could retract your comment for now and leave it until after the statistics have been collected and discussed it would be a massive help Knepflerle (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taivo has moved the comments to User_talk:Taivo#Kyiv Survey Comments Knepflerle (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qui se ressemblent s'assemblent? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for removing (this is a joke) but since it was outside the signature, I was not sure to whom it belongs. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I hope that you truly believe me when I say that: objectivity is my only concern here. Saying that Scientology is "bad" and Falun Gong is "good" is dangerous and a judgment call. I think that we should use similar titles not because I trust the Chinese government (quite the contrary) but because we should be fair. But then I can be mistaken. Flamarande (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have I ever said that Scientology is "bad"? I merely present what the sources say. Have you taken a look at Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong/sources? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious on your opinion based on WP:NPOV on citing this source. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting you: "and I never can be absolutely sure of anything which I didn't see with my own eyes - and even then, we can be never truly be sure of anything - see the Matrix films :)", this is just like quoting myself :) a few years ago. By now I realized that our sensory functions convince us to believe stuff. You say that you are an atheist, then I would argue, that you believe, rather then know for sure, that there is no god, which I can respect. But consider people wanting to relax, do meditation, see stuff out of the ordinary after which they believe that there is god. Can you blame them? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing your posts | here and other of your "contributions", I can only hope that the rest of the German society has a better level of historical awareness. Quest09 (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't expect me to read your post in my talk page, do you?--Quest09 (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but you can read my honest and only answer to you first post (last sentence). Flamarande (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flamarande. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A RfM has been submitted at the RfM page here for the article Byzantine Empire. You may add any comments you may have on this page and are welcome, but your presence is not required. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at [AFD] for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the last AFD. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not call me like that. Be civil. Xashaiar (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant as an insult (afaik Xash isn't an insult), I simply didn't remember your full name. I was in haste to change the text before somebody else reverted my revert. Flamarande (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK. Insulting me was not what my warning was supposed to address. My name is the name of a good person, so do not insult Him. :) Xashaiar (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all your kind words, and for your improvements to the Article 231 page. I have posted some ideas for further improvement to the page. Please have a wonderful day.--A.S. Brown (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please sign off at your vote at Talk:Kazimierz Pułaski. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, may i ask you to try to resolve the edit dispute that is currently ongoing on the John Hunyadi article. The problem was discussed but it looks like some wiki members choose to ignore the discussion page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.97.229 (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I moved you reply so it is above Bilby's one [7] as I believe that is where it should be based on indenting. I understand in cases like this where you are replying to something where the indentation is already confused, it's difficult to know what to do but given the collapse box which I don't know who added, it was rather confusing in the old location. Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the Romans actually wrote CIVISROMANVSSVM, so we're already modifying it. I figured it was better to eliminate the redundancy of having the phrase both with and without macrons, and modern Latin texts quite often do include macrons (as well as ‹u› vs. ‹v›), at least at first. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you contributed to the discussion on a name change of Saint Bartholomew, you may be interested in the discussion on a name change for Paul of Tarsus. Cjc13 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up on that careless mistake of mine. Much appreciated.Dejvid (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't conceive that there's a personal quarrel between us, and I'm not approaching the discussions there from that angle. Unfortunately, however, you for some reason chose to adopt a deliberately and intentionally provocative tone, and seem to feel rather free to dogmatically pontificate at length, even while having only a rather sketchy knowledge of the facts of the situation under discussion. I'm not the only one who finds this rhetorical strategy on your part to be rather grating (cf. the "S-O-A-P-B-O-X" comment made before I ever replied to you at all), nor do I apologize for bringing your far-flung provocations into contact with basic reality, even if I have to be somewhat brusque and abrupt in order to do so. If you want a conversation to flow smoothly, then maybe you should avoid behaving in a manner which other people can easily interpret as deliberately and intentionally trying to be obnoxious. AnonMoos (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you insulted anybody -- I said that you (for some reason) chose to adopt a deliberately and intentionally provocative tone, and seemed to feel rather free to dogmatically pontificate at length (even while having only a rather sketchy knowledge of the facts of the situation under discussion), resulting in a overall rhetorical style which I was not the only one to find rather grating and annoying. You had several opportunities to dial things down a notch, but chose not to take advantage of any of them, giving the end results which can now be seen in the Humanities ref. desk thread... AnonMoos (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This poster in the context of this page is representing or showing propagnda. But he doesn't represent but propaganda but also reality. So it is neutral to write it with a verifiable source. You are placing many citation needed and when I give a citation, you would remove it.This placard is not only propaganda. I insistated in many paragraphs on the explanations of these atrocities. It is not anti-German. Sincrely José Fontaine (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. But this placard, placed on this page is a Metaphor as also the Rape of Belgium itself incidentally. A metaphor, is not à la lettre true (There was not in the proper sense a rape of Belgium and Belgium is not a girl, but well in the figurative sense). There is also a rape of the International Right. So the placard is actual in a figurative sense. I agree with you to bring nuances to this way of speaking but it is historically right a rape happened. Because the German Chancelor recognized it (as far the inernational right is concerned), and for the massacres in Dinant for instance by the German Government in May 2002. In doing so, Germany show she is a great country. The German politics, since Willy Brandt (but before too), toward the Eastern countries, toward the jews, toward Belgium (etc.), is a great politics. The page ought to say it. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made some edits to the article Martens Clause please see WP:NOTBROKEN: Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. -- PBS (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're trying to keep the Gibbon bit about Christianity in Roman Empire. Are you familiar enough with Gibbon to come up with a more precise citation? That would give you better grounds for keeping it. I support its inclusion, but don't have time to find a proper citation. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I clicked on the wrong talk link; yours was nearby. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to report User:Revilo11 for vandalism on the Roman army article, which I have now reversed. Since you know your way around Wiki much better than me, can I leave this matter in your capable hands? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave him, hopefully he will not return. If he returns then we can report him. Flamarande (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Could you add your opinion to the debate on dating-conventions in the Discussion Page of Imperial Roman army? User:Awien has taken it upon himself to change the BC/AD convention that I used to BCE/CE. I am keen to get as many opinions as possible on this. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you knew what my opinion about the BCE/CE crap was. Awien acted unilaterally against the rules and despite having no consensus~for the change. The ball is in his field now. Flamarande (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your decisive intervention. I hope Awien now disappears and stops hassling everyone with this politically correct nonsense. How do you rate my Roman army project so far? Have you also read Early Roman army and Roman army of the mid-Republic? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intervention was nothing special and the issue might yet be revived by Awien. I have a taken a look in some of these articles and I'm very impressed. My only advice is that you provide more precise citations from your books. Presently you have whole paragraphs without a citation; the ideal is to provide a citation for every fifth or sixth sentence (the most important ones). Flamarande (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly right about Roman army of the mid-Republic. I reckon it needs some 50 extra refs to bring it up to scratch. Unfortunately, I am not very disciplined about entering refs - I tend to write first, find refs later - not a good procedure! PS: there are several of my articles which are currently un-graded, including Roman army, Early Roman army, Roman army of the mid-Republic, Imperial Roman army, Alpine regiments of the Roman army, Raeti, Costoboci, Equites cataphractarii, Equites singulares Augusti. The big ones I will eventually submit for A-grade. In the meantime, could you award B-grade to these (if they deserve it, of course), as grading seems to have some deterrent effect on vandals/casual editing. regards EraNavigator (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to say that - I am also a fan of quotations. --Belchman (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Shōjo manga, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From time to time I use a computer with a small screen. The former placing of the two images (in a separate section below the manga box) created a large empty space. By placing the two images above (directly below the manga box) this 'empty space' is corrected (without any problems that I know of to users with large screens). Thank you. Flamarande (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:People's Republic of China. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Honestly: you can forget your proposal seems unduly harsh and unnecessary. Ngchen (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait while I finish updating the article. While it is no rule, the courtesy would require that I would be allowed to finish my edits. Also I see no reason for such clutter of barely reckognisable images that make reading of the text difficult-especially if we have better versions, quite visible.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that you were finished for today. The pictures are not cluttered if they are all on the same side and have the same size. Notice also that the article is not only about the genocide it is de facto about the whole war, campaign, and background. Therefore the other pictures are valuable because they provide details of the conflict's background. Flamarande (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need two pictures of von Trotha? Especially if the other one is barely visible? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my screen (1440 X 900 px) the article is lacking in pictures to accompany the text. What we could do is move the first picture (of the starving survivors) below (into the 'Number of victims'-section) and move the larger Trotha-picture to its place. The larger picture (of the main responsible) can then be at the side of the "content's box" without problem (something which the present picture can't do - it's simply too small). Flamarande (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree-the picture of victims of the genocide needs to be first. I see no reason for two pictures of von Trotha, especially as the second one barely shows him. The same with other duplicates--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said "in my screen the article lacks pictures". If you really want to remove the smaller Trotha-picture, fine by me. But the "Theodor Leutwein with Hendrik Witbooi (2nd on the left?) in 1896"-picture is relevant for the whole conflict and has to stay. Flamarande (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Leutwin and Witbooi have their own clear pictures, we don't need one where it even isn't clear who is who on the picture.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that there was civil encounter/relation between the two (shown by the picture) before the conflict is quite important. This article is not only about the genocide, it also about the background of the rebellion, the rebellion itself, and the aftermath. This picture has to stay. Flamarande (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'This isn't a factual/political/cultural/historical battleground. Spare your breath and stop preaching your gospel.' really necessary? I'd already said pretty much the same thing to him, in civil terms, and I don't think there's a need to talk like that to someone who has already confessed to being a kid. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Some one has re-directed Limigantes to the article on the Antes people. In fact, there is no connection between the two. The Limigantes were probably the indigenous people of the Hungarian Plain, subject to their overlords, the Iazyges, a Sarmatian tribe, while the Antes were a Sarmatian, later Slavic, people of the S. Russian steppe. The main author of Antes, User:Hxseek, has confirmed to me that he is not responsible for this re-direction, and agrees with me that there is no connection. Do you know how to "de-re-direct" Limigantes from this article? Limigantes should be re-directed to Iazyges. Can you handle this please? Cheers EraNavigator (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Maybe our definitions of 'rude' differ, but I consider it rude to tell someone "you could have found it yourself in 5 minutes" when doing something they asked. Whether or not you intended to be rude, it reads as rude: I cannot see your expression or hear the tone of your voice. If you had said "I found this by (insert route to articles), which you could do in future", that wouldn't be rude and would be helpful. If they had actually been able to find those articles themselves without prompting, they would have done so. Even then, we've surely all had those blank moments when we can't find something that seems obvious once we've asked, or once someone else points it out. But this sort of question (essentially "I can't find/understand this information in the articles I've found, and I can't find the article that should contain this") is why the desks were created. If you don't like answering this sort of question, if answering it makes you resent the asker or consider them lazy, then do not answer this sort of quesion. Please don't start making comments about how they shouldn't have asked. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to see my expression or hear the tone of my voice then perhaps you should assume good faith of my part. "It reads as rude" only reveals your own personal interpretation and suspicions. "If they had actually been able to find those articles themselves without prompting, they would have done so." is a joke, right? It has to be a joke. I did not make a comment about how he shouldn't have asked. I just pointed out that the answer was extremely easy to find: "Let me point out that you could have found the answers for yourself in 5 minutes". Flamarande (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here for the same reason, to inform you of different definition of rudeness. However, I prefer to clutter the desk instead of letting here my POV. See: [[8]].80.58.205.34 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look you two, I didn't insult the original questioner. I just and only pointed out that the answer was extremely easy to find: "Let me point out that you could have found the answers for yourself in 5 minutes". Perhaps the original questioner had a mental blank (which we all suffer from to time to time) perhaps he is simply lazy (it's easier to ask than to look for the proper articles), perhaps he is mentally handicapped. He and all of us are clearly advised to look for our answers ourselves first: Is there any way I can get a faster answer? Yes, you can search first. Please do this.

Either way IF HE has a problem with my answer he will tell me so/complain to me personally. I do not believe that he or the Humanity reference desk needs a "Knight in shining armour mounted upon the horse of good manners, a true Paladin of Politeness defending the highest standards of friendship against the barbarian hordes of rudeness" (rudeness which the Paladin himself defines). I hope that you all agree.

Under this strange definition of rudeness the following: Is there any way I can get a faster answer? Yes, you can search first. Please do this. is a rude advice, right? Perhaps the paladins among us should complain asap. Flamarande (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC) PS: Read my user-page: I am politically incorrect. Hence, I will use common sense and speak plainly rather than trip all over myself trying to be inoffensive.[reply]

I am not saying that you intended to be rude, I am saying that the words you used, in the way you phrased them, read as rude to people (as the other user has pointed out) who come from the US and the UK, and probably other western European countries (but I am unsure of that). The note at the top of the page was carefully written (through discussion on the talk page) so as not to be rude. it would be possible, speaking face to face, to convey your words in a soft, friendly manner: that would not be rude. But when written down, they become rude because the default reading of them is not soft and friendly.

Please don't start on the 'white knighting' business: we are a community, with basic community standards of behaviour, and it is the business of all of us to point out when something is unhelpful or rude. That is how a community works. Since you were apparently unaware that what you said was rude (and unhelpful, since it doesn't tell them how they could have found it), my informing you has increased your knowledge. It would be a shame if nobody told you, and you were unintentionally insulting people for years who all assumed you meant it (since it would be obvious to them that it was rude). Any insults you deliver should be intentional, for effective communication :) 86.164.144.120 (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Flamarande's wording reads as rude and/or arrogant to people in English-speaking countries. (Having lived in Germany, I can also vouch that many behaviors that would be considered rude in English-speaking countries are normal in Germany.) Apart from variable cultural definitions of rudeness, I would point out that Flamarande cannot know that the person who posted the question could have found the information in 5 minutes. We have no idea how much or how little skill this person has at searching for information. Those of us who answer on the Reference Desk are very skilled at finding information. Hopefully, we are happy to help others who are less skilled and feel no need to scold them for lacking that skill. I think that we have to assume that if the person asks for the information, he or she does not know how to find it. We should feel free to say, "You can find this kind of information by typing your topic into the Search box" without scolding the person for not doing so. In the case of this person's question, it would not have been easy to find the information just by typing key words from their question into the Search box. Really, it would be necessary to know the labels for the different structures of government—a level of knowledge that we have no right to expect from the questioner. Marco polo (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I can know if someone can find the relevant information about Presidential systems in 5 minutes or less. If you looking for information about Presidential systems you logically type President in the search-field, hit enter, and voila. The article will give you the wanted information. Less than 5 minutes. It takes more effort and requires some knowledge about the inner workings of Wikipedia to find the relevant Humanities page. At least that's my honest opinion in this matter. Flamarande (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note there is a related discussion of sorts on the Reference Desk Talk Page, and nobody involved has thought to notify you: I will be reminding those involved that they should have told you, since community standards of behaviour cut both ways. You could, of course, have found it yourself in less than 5 minutes, if you had known to look :P The last sentence was a joke, and not intended as a genuine remonstration. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please study the reason behind wp:Commonname, Ganga is an exception to the rule, and this exception is not based on facts. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, riiiight. Please watch some English-speaking TV (like CNN, BBC World, Sky One, etc). You might also consider to read some English books about this river. They use the name 'Ganges' and not Ganga. And that is what Commonname is all about. Flamarande (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had left that unanswered, we need hard evidence in the form of wp:V, anecdotal evidence doesnot work, anyways the example has been taken off, please check wp:COMMONNAME.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flamarande. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 23:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Byzantine Empire timeline infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flamarande

Would you change the caption under the so-called picture of Hypatia in lead position on the existing Wiki page Hypatia to "Hypatia as possibly imagined by Raphael", unless you have evidence to support the fact that this of certainty an

image of Raphael's imagining of Hypatia.  

The evidence so far cited amounts to "some consider it as" without any reference to who considers it so: furthermore a story is "alleged to have" happened concerning the switch of Raphael imagining Hypatia to Raphael imagining Francesco Maria della Rovere. It's all very hypothetical.

The existing Wiki "School of Athens" article says the Raphael Hypatia link has not yet been verified. I have seen no articles to support that this is of certainty Raphael's imagining of Hypatia.

Future Perfect at Sunrise writes in reply to my comment on EditingTalk Hypatia "Raphael didn't think anything about her appearance", so it seems ridiculous to have a caption that says Raphael is going to the trouble of imagining her under the said picture.

Best to you, Barroncd (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had so many hornets editing I'm ceasing activity.

We have to read the article School of Athens carefully. IMHO the identification as Hypatia is more or less sure (there is no question mark behind her name), while the Fayum picture misidentification as Hypatia was probably a mistake created in internet site and then propagated through the web. The Hypatia-talkpage is the best place for this discussion. Flamarande (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flamarande. Did you read the reasons stated for the change, including that historians prefer to use "João"? Examples:

1. Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798-1852, by Roderick J. Barman (1988). [9]
2. Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825-1891, by Roderick J. Barman (1999). [10]
3. Princess Isabel of Brazil: gender and power in the nineteenth century, by Roderick J. Barman (2002). [11]
4. Dom Pedro: the struggle for liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798-1834. by Neill Macaulay (1986). [12]
5. The history of Brazil, by Robert M. Levine (1999). [13]
6. Isabel Orleans-Bragança: the Brazilian princess who freed the slaves, by James McMurtry Longo (2008). [14]
7. The Brazil reader: history, culture, politics, by Robert M. Levine and John J. Crocitti (1999). [15]
8. A history of modern Brazil: the past against the future, by Colin M. MacLachlan (2003). [16]
9. Brazil: empire and republic, 1822-1930, by Leslie Bethell (1989). [17]
10. Brazil: The Once and Future Country, by Marshall C. Eakin (1998). [18]
11. Brazil, by Errol Lincoln Uys (2000). [19]
12. Brazil, by Jane Ladle (1999). [20]
13. A reference guide to Latin American history, by James D. Henderson (2000). [21]
14. Tropical Versailles: empire, monarchy, and the Portuguese royal court in Rio de Janeiro, 1808-1821, by Kirsten Schultz (2001). [22]
15. The Portuguese empire, 1415-1808: a world on the move, by A. J. R. Russell-Wood (1998). [23]
16. The history of Portugal, by James Maxwell Anderson (2000). [24]
17. The Independence of Latin America, by Leslie Bethell (1987). [25]
18. Empires and colonies, by Jonathan Hart (2008). [26]
19. Americanos: Latin America's struggle for independence, by John Charles Chasteen (2008). [27]
20. Exotic nations: literature and cultural identity in the United States and Brazil, 1830-1930, by Renata Ruth Mautner Wasserman (1994). [28]
21. Brazil, by Harry Greenbaum (2003). [29]

His mother and antecessor is called Maria I of Portugal (not Marie II) and his son and successor is called Pedro I of Brazil not Peter I. American and British historians do not anglicize their names and the articles need consistency. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the proper place for a debate over a move-request. The talk-page of the article serves that purpose. Flamarande (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I won't bother you anymore. I was just trying to clarify the matter. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your copyedits. If you can spare any more time on this, I would appreciate it. I don't anticipate having more time to do more research until next week. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flamarande. You !voted support at the requested move discussion, which has been relisted. Since you last commmented, consensus has shifted slightly to support "Somalian literature" rather than "Somali literature". Can you revisit the above discussion to either re-affirm your support or to take a new stance on the RM? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making it a one entry list, wouldn't redirecting Equipment and vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 to vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 be better? That way when the target is deleted, so will this as being a redirect. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'When the target is deleted' is being optimistic. It seems that several 40K fans have voted against its deletion. IF it gets deleted at all (and IMHO all these articles should never have been written in the first place) I plan to place a speedy deletion request. Let me deal with one problem at a time. There is no hurry. Flamarande (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the message on my talk page. I've created a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style#Section on Gregorian calendar .28BCE.29 dates and WP:NPOV, in an effort to get that arbitrarily added bit removed from the WikiProject MOS there. If we do reach consensus to have it removed, we can then remove the bit you've added to WP:ERA, which I believe defies the whole purpose of WP:ERA's policy of not preferring one notation over the other. If we allow that to stay, eventually people will want to add that BCE/CE are preferable for Hindu-related articles as well, or Buddhism-related articles, or any history-related articles at all. I disagree, as I think it is BCE/CE that are the euphemistic PC terms that should be diminished in use, not the other way around. I think you'd agree. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 08:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have just come here from Ancient Greek architecture to ask, out of curiosity, why you have changed the BCE/CE dates that I conscientiously inserted for BC/AD, which I would normally use because most of my articles relate to Christianity in some way or another.

OK! What I have just discovered is that I don't need to be P.C. I'll stop now. toodle-oo! Amandajm (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Advocate article that I inserted as a reference into the Amy Winehouse article has Winehouse describing herself as "bi". Why did you take issue with it as a source? Asarelah (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not consider a substantial number of categories to be a defect.
They simply need to be accurate.
Varlaam (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these categories are a bit dubious and contradictory. Where is the required source about Amy Winehouse's religion? Did she regularly attend Jewish religious ceremonies? Did she say that she followed Judaism? Do we simply inherit our parents religion perhaps? Was she a singer of London? Was she a singer of a specific district of London? Flamarande (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned about the Jewish issue. Your decision there was a reasonable one. At present, Jewish appears to be her background more than a faith that she practised actively. But "Jewish" is both ethnic and religious. You can have a Jewish atheist or a Jewish Christian. So a category like English Jews can be using either meaning; it's ambiguous.

Anyway, I was merely saying that, in general, it is ok to list a lot of categories if they are relevant. Relevant, serious, accurate. Some articles suit many categories, and that's not a problem.

Varlaam (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You removed information which you tagged on 24th August[30] under the pretext that "A request for proper sources was basicly ignored for a whole year"[31] on the very same day. I will assume good faith, and that this was a mistake. Please restore the information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not it WAS a honest mistake. There where so many one-year-old-tags that I simply mixed them up. However I won't restore UNSOURCED information particularly because 'The next SOURCED paragraph manages to explain the issue in a proper manner'. Flamarande (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, relisted, and admin requests discussion of St Anselm's alternative recommendation to move:

PASTE

Relisted Mike Cline (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC) please continue and weigh in on this discussion relative a specific move to Good thief Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

END OF PASTE In ictu oculi (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Particularily for your work to Ancient Roman articles! We appreciate your long standing edits :)! But we don;t think Rome would approve of your Pro-European stance in this crumbling economy lol :P! Alexandre8 (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flamarande,

Please don't get into an edit-war over your ERA changes. WP:ERA is quite clear that you shouldn't be doing this without consensus on the article Talk: page, and there's no point in trying to blame it on some other editor who made some change over 2 years ago. On a practical level, since you reverted first, you will always end up violating 3RR first. I strongly recommend you discuss this on the various article Talk: pages instead, I'm sure we can reach some reasonable accomodation that complies with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also agree that WP:ERA is clear in these matters. I also honestly believe that it is clearly on my side (restoration of the original dating system which have been changed without proper protocol) and I believe that if you are fair in these matters you will agree with me. To be fair I was mistaken in the article Iberia (the history of the article is a bit confusing). Flamarande (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERA nowhere states that the earliest use is the one an article must follow forever after - and quite frankly, I have little patience for editors who use any excuse they can find to convert to a specific notation (by the way, those editors almost always insist on converting to BC/AD notation). User:CIS was notorious for this; he would use three strategies to convert articles to BC/AD:

1. If the article originally used BC/AD, then he would insist it needed to be BC/AD forever after.
2. If the article had originally used BCE/CE or mixed, but had a majority of BC/AD usage, then he would insist it needed to go by the majority usage.
3. If some other condition prevailed, or there was consensus against changing to BC/AD, he would regularly open discussions on the article Talk: page about converting to the BC/AD notation.

These tactics should be familiar, since they are the exact ones you follow, including the polls. By the way, like you he also claimed not to be Christian, but an atheist, and that use of the BCE/CE terminology was "political correctness". Are you familiar with User:CIS? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an accusation? Yes, in fact I remember him vaguely (from the talkpages). However I'm not him/her. But if you're unwilling to take my word for it then I can only suggest that you follow the proper procedure of asking for a sockpuppet verification. I can also tell you now that I don't twist/change/convert a BCE/CE article towards BC/AD on purpose but that I simply don't like it when it's done the other way around (BC/AD towards BCE/CE) and that I tend to revert such sneaky changes towards the original dating system. I also suggest that you take a look at my edits. You will find plenty of edits by which I unmade sneaky changes towards BCE/CE but ALWAYS when the original dating system was BC/AD and the change itself was a sneaky thing (clearly against WP:ERA). I think I have done two single mistakes but that's it. Flamarande (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever "unmade sneaky changes" towards BC/AD when "the original dating system" was BCE/CE and "the change itself was a sneaky thing (clearly against WP:ERA)"? When I see "sneaky era changes", 19 times out of 20 they are done to remove BCE/CE (e.g. like this or this) - I don't even recall seeing it the other way. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, yes I have (once or twice), and I want to point out that I can hardly be held accountable for what other users do. Flamarande (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're not responsible for what these editors do, I was merely pointing out their prevalence. However, I haven't been able to find any making the opposite change (though I'm sure it's possible they exist). For some reason, BCE/CE notation seems to seriously offend a certain segment of readers/editors, but not the opposite, which is odd, given that those who object to BCE/CE (including you) often state that it is an example of "political correctness" (or as you put it above "simply a pitiful measure of political correctness and nothing more" - emphasis yours) - i.e. an attempt to avoid offending various groups. That's what makes your edits and rationale for them all the more surprising: it's very rare to find an editor making "sneaky" BC/AD -> BCE/CE changes, but it's almost trivially easy to find editors doing the opposite (I came across three such editors in the past two days alone). Yet even a cursory look at your edit history shows dozens of examples of you converting articles to BC/AD. If you said to me "I never revert sneaky BC/AD->BCE/CE editors because I've never seen any", that would be plausible. But to never have an occasion to revert "sneaky BCE/CE->BC/AD" editors, when Wikipedia is rife with them? That's hard to believe. Can you provide the diffs of the "once or twice" you actually reverted one of them? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I did (once or twice) but I'm unable to find them (I have made a couple of thousand edits). To be honest I'm not very surprised that you're finding more BC/AD warriors than BCE/CE warriors in general numbers. It has to do with the fact that BC/AD truly is the most popular system and that BCE/CE is largely unknown outside the USA (particularly in Europe). People who are unfamiliar with BCE/CE (as I was) simply don't like it at all. They learn the English language at school and they read the books. Guess what dating system they use? BC/AD. Then they go to Wikipedia and they read most articles which use BC/AD. But here and there they find this strange and unfamiliar BCE/CE and what do they do? They edit it towards the form they were taught at school.

However I believe that the reason that you're finding AD preachers and I'm finding some many BCE warriors is simply this: when I read an article which uses BCE I tend to check its history. Too many times I confirm that BCE was imposed through an unrequested, undebated, and unagreed change = sneaky one. I tend to revert such sneaky changes. It is possible that you're doing the same thing (from the "other side"). But if you want me to name a couple of BCE/CE warriors... just ask. Flamarande (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this elsewhere, but it bears repeating, so I'm including it here too. The reality of Wikipedia and era notations is not as you've described it. Rather, era notation "changers" generally fall into one of three groups:

1. People who add material to an article in the notation they usually use, and who don't pay a lot of attention to the notation that's currently being used in an article. Thus, for example, an article which originally had BC/AD notation over time gains material that also uses BCE/CE notation. This is common, is not because of subterfuge or "sneakiness", and is exactly what happened in this article (and most of the others that you describe as "sneaky", "unrequested", "undebated", "unagreed").
2. A small number of individuals (usually IPs or inexperienced editors) take offense to BCE/CE notation, and "sneakily" convert it to BC/AD notation. I've given you several examples of that, and can easily find dozens more.
3. A very small number of experienced editors take offense to BCE/CE notation, and try to use the guidelines to their advantage to, wherever possible, change it to BC/AD notation. You and (now banned) User:CIS fall into this last group.

Members of group 1 mean well, but are simply not attentive to (or not concerned about) era notation. They do not cause any significant issue: if an article becomes filled with mixed notation, then a consensual decision can be made as to which notation should be used. However, members of groups 2 and 3 are problems. They are not editing to improve Wikipedia, but rather to promote a personal agenda.

Your arguments here and elsewhere about why BCE/CE is not "the most popular dating system" and why arguments in its favor make you "want to puke" are not relevant here. WP:ERA is quite clear; either notation is acceptable, and it is only exactly what you are doing (arbitrarily changing one notation to the other) that is disruptive. Using Wikilawyering to try to use the WP:ERA guideline to selectively remove one notation is no less disruptive. And, quite frankly, nothing is being "censored" anywhere on Wikipedia (or elsewhere). People are free to use whatever era notation they prefer, and the fact that you are so invested in this issue that you consider use of BCE/CE notation to be "censorship" that should be "reverted with extreme prejudice" is troubling. I think you need to take a step back here, and re-evaluate what you are doing and why. Please focus on more productive activities. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you have your opinion and I have mine. I'm willing to make a compromise: BCE/CE for Pythius of Priene (because two years have passed). However Antiochus III the Great (who began with BC/AD and which used it predominantly until you changed it very recently [32] and Germanic Wars (same reasons) get their original dating system restored. I believe that this is a reasonable compromise. Flamarande (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to play era games, actually, because, unlike you, I don't really care which notation is used. On the other hand, you clearly spend a significant amount of time trying to edit or otherwise wikilawyer BCE/CE notation out of Wikipedia, based on your very strongly held and clearly expressed animus towards the notation. Every edit you make towards that goal is a fundamental violation of WP:ERA, even if someone happened to add BCE/CE notation to an article that previously had only BC/AD notation, and you consider their generally innocent edit to be "sneaky". You have also not presented a specific rationale for changing the Germanic Wars article. I'll tell you the "compromise" I'm willing to make; you can change the Antiochus III the Great to the era notation you so strongly prefer, and leave the other two articles alone. That said, if you accept this compromise, going forward you need to step down from your self-appointed role of trying to eliminate BC/AD notation from Wikipedia wherever possible. If I find you again making these kinds of arbitrary era changes, even if you have wikilawyering excuses, I'll just take you to AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presented my rational at the talkpage of Germanic Wars and I hope for a fair outcome. I also will restore the original dating system in Antiochus III the Great as you're willing to concede. I have nothing against a future AN/I report IF I do something wrong (if I don't please leave me in peace). Flamarande (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear; if I see you make any arbitrary edits as part of your anti-BC/AD campaign, I'll bring it straight to AN/I. And an "arbitrary edit" includes finding an article with both notations, discovering that at some time in the past someone innocently or unthinkingly added material with BCE/CE notation, and using that as an excuse to convert it to BC/AD. WP:ERA was designed precisely to stop edits like the ones you are making. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then please tell me how such an article is improved. Seriously now, I have found the article Germanic peoples which uses both systems. Now how should we proceed? Leave them both (which is simply strange for the reader and against the rules)? Put a tag? Ask for the opinion of others? Restore the original one? WP:ERA is pretty vague in this matter. It merely says "do not change" but it doesn't say what one should do if another user changed the system by accident or not. Flamarande (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC) PS: I'm not waging an anti-BC/AD campaign.[reply]

Not recieving any advice whatsoever I decided to follow common sense and WP:ERA. And I don't agree that "innocently or unthinkingly added material with BCE/CE notation" (or BC/AD) turns an article into an open case. The previous history of an article (and its earliest dating system) surely has to count for something. Flamarande (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"please tell me how such an article is improved"? Articles are improved by getting out good history books, reading them, and then summarizing and citing their contents in articles that are missing them. They are not improved by going on anti BCE/CE crusades, as you have been doing, in violation of WP:ERA. It's quite cute that you have, for the very first time, converted an article to BCE/CE - amusing enough that I'll ignore it. If I see you continuing your crusade, though, you can expect administrative action. My advice is to recognize that your almost 6 year crusade against BCE/CE has come to an end, and stop making era notation changes, before you end up being blocked, restricted or banned for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO there was simply nothing to ignore and you know it. It wasn't the very first time, I'm quite certain that I have done it before (believe it or not - and if you don't believe me tough luck. I have been nothing than honest in such matters, unlike others). I ask you for a clear official policy to follow in a particular case and you offer me general rethoric about general improvement. Thank you but I already have improved several articles before.

Spare me your rethoric and indicate me a clear protocol of the English wiki to follow when someone finds an article that uses both forms or when someone finds a recent change which was done against WP:ERA. Are we somehow supposed to call an administrator? Are we somehow supposed to pretend that nothing happened at all? Are we supposed to revert such a change? Can you tell me why WP:ERA simply avoids these issues at all?

I also will keep giving my honest opinion if this question is raised in an article's talkpage. I respect the results of such debates whatever they may be (no matter if they were against my opinion/side - happened before). If someone thinks that I should be blocked because of it, then so be it. Just don't ask how consensus can be reached if someone can be banned due having an opinion. Flamarande (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC) PS: I'm still waiting for a fair resolution in the Germanic Wars. No one seems to have offered any reasonable reason at all for a change towards BCE/CE.[reply]

Oh the hypocrisy is killing. Jayjg, when you stop arbitarily changing articles to BCE and then defending them to the death your arguments might hold more weight. at the moment its just pot and kettle. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I told you that I had reverted an anti-BCE switch (once or twice) before, but you were cynical about it. I found it: [33] (notice the date). No, rest assured, I don't want some stupid medal and I don't want some apology. I just like to be honest in such matters and I don't like when someone doesn't trust my word for it. Flamarande (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC) PS: I'm still waiting for a fair resolution in the Germanic Wars. No one seems to have offered any reasonable reason at all for a change towards BCE/CE. It seems that the changer made it to show somebody else "to point out that one could harmonize either way" and IMHO that's not a proper reason.[reply]

I see. One time you changed one instance of BC/BCE to BCE. Bravo! Regarding the Germanic Wars, the issue is resolved. Your anti BCE/CE campaign is now officially over, so you're done there. If you want to add historical material to the article, feel free, but no more era changes. Please try to recognize that your obsession with this notation and these changes, and insistence that it's not "fair" is part of the problem. If an article has mixed notation, or even has a different notation than the one it started with 7 or 8 years ago, it's not your problem any more: you've been relieved of that burden. Now you need to step away, and focus on things like actual article content instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't merely an instance, it was an article (if there were more I would have corrected them too). In Germanic Wars I choose between two dating systems (which is unbecoming and against the rules) choosing the original system used before (I wouldn't had imposed BC/AD if the article had begun with BCE). You choose BCE/CE system without a specific rationale. You consider my changes arbitrary but is your change in this particular case truly any better?

I also must point out that in your understandable eagerness to protect the dating system of the article Antiochus III the Great you changed the quotes from the sources. You have to admit that that is somewhat embarrassing (for you).

I have found a classical example: Coele-Syria (it earliest dating system is BC/AD and used it exclusively - without any problem at all - until very recently). The change was probably an accident and no proper request to change the dating system was ever made. IMHO this case is unambiguous: two dating systems are unwished and against the official policies. However I don't wish to be brought before AN/I by an avoidable mistake and waste everybody's time. So tell me: what is to be done in this particular case? What are the parameters? Flamarande (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters are this: stop looking for these issues, because it's not your problem any more. Stop worrying about it, thinking about it, posting about it, obsessing over it, etc. You've been relieved of the duty of having to "fix" articles that have BCE/CE notation in them. Any changes you to this notation will simply be arbitrary, part of your obsession with removing the era notation that, in your words, makes you "want to puke", and will therefore require administrative action. Your stomach is now safe, and you are now free to focus instead on more valuable tasks, like adding missing content. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Gardens of Maecenas, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Apis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flamarande, you have recently been involved in the discussion of Khaua-Mbandjeru Rebellion. I would like to ask you to check the article's talk page and give input. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to watch this page and saw your comments only now. --Pgallert (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael's Scuola di Atene

Hi, I was editing further info about the famous Raphael fresco, but I did some mistakes (I didn't understand what): so a your note about Ipazia is today cancelled and there is a problem of visualization too! Please, give a look and try to restore! I'm really sorry!!! Sorry If I used this way to reach you (and this very stupid automatic trophy) but I had no other way! History1976 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

I see you are skilled in Portugese, so I wonder if you could translate two sections here? The sections are: Estilo and Personagens. I would like to include this piece of information on Fyodor Dostoyevsky, as the current Themes and style section is unorganized. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 08:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Flamarande. I'm just letting you know there is a discussion going at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest article pertaining to the typographical dagger or "death dagger" being used for Varus. There should be a consensus reached and I was thinking your thoughts would be great. Thanks!--Tataryn77 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a community review of the GA status of Roman Empire at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Roman Empire/1, to which you may wish to contribute.--SabreBD (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of military commanders 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/List of military commanders until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. — LlywelynII 14:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is to let everyone who commented in the 2010 RM know that there's another RM/RfC here, in case you'd like to comment again. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello! Judging by the talk page archives, I see that you have shown a strong interest for the article Cleopatra in the past. Would you be interested in reviewing it as a Featured Article Candidate? If so, please share your thoughts and critiques at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cleopatra/archive1. It would be most appreciated. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Republic, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. AIRcorn (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]