Hello Furius. Congratulations on all the great translation work you have been doing from Italian and German over the past couple of weeks. Are these your preferred languages or are you just as happy with French and Spanish? I am frequently asked to translate from these languages too but there's often too much to do. Perhaps you could help out from time to time? --Ipigott (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ipigott. French I can do roughly as easily as German and Italian. Spanish takes a bit longer, but I'm happy to try! Furius (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recently became involved in the Bremen QR project where I have copy-edited all the English translations to date and added some of my own. You can see here that there's still quite a bit to be covered. If you would like to help out, I think it would be useful to have translations of Bremer Börse and the Domshof but I think that for English-speaking users, some of the detail could be left out. You can use your discretion. Let me know if you are interested.--Ipigott (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting! I'll get started with the Domshof. Furius (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Furius. Thanks for your work in the Bremen QR project an happy new year. --Godewind (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Furius! Lovely (translation) work your're doing here - thank you very much. I thought this might be another interesting project for you - it's an article recently created by little old me. Greetings--Der Spion (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting article! Happily done! Furius (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're awesome! How can I thank you? Maybe with this or that - provided you're interested... Yours--Der Spion (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Rosetta Barnstar
	Great work, keep it up! Yakikaki (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your're great, man! Thanks a lot and keep on with that! I'll ask again if there comes more about the Aachen Cathedral Treasury - by the way, I also extended that one... Did you have a look at the Essen projects (not my section)? See you (soon)--Der Spion (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that one before? It's that fast...--Der Spion (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And there would be more here - just for future references. But please don't feel pressurised, I'm just so amazed about your productivity! Best wishes,--Der Spion (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danke! Diese sind gut für meine Lesefähigkeit und sehr interessant!

Frohes neues Jahr! Furius (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, it's me! Thanks a lot for your great work, once more! I just wanted to ask you whether you'd be interested in improving the article Aachen Gospels with the German version. Maybe you could actually separate the content and turn it into an article exculively about the Carolingian manuscript like in the German version, since you've already translated the Liuthar Gospels. Hope to here from you soon.--Der Spion (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I think that's a good idea. I will put it on my list for the weekend. 23:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well that was interesting! It is sad that there are no images of the cover. Furius (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Furius, This started in the German wikipedia. Could you please check the translation? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thanks for the cake! Furius (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Hungarian cake, when a German Chocolate Cake (not invented in Germany, however) may have been more fitting. When I crossed that article in the German Wikipedia, I knew it belonged here. It is a complement to Three hares, and that English wikipedia's article is better by far than the German was (haven't looked at it recently). Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you wanted to contribute to the German wikipedia (I don't know if you go in that direction) you could translate English wikipedia Three hares. Of course, I have a documented bias, but I think our article is much more comprehensive than theirs. There is, however, the additional problem of the discontinuity of the German Wikipedia sourcing requirements from the English, and given their greater Germanic stringency it may not even be possible. This reminds me of the Rheinheitsgebot, which is living proof of the difference between Belgians and Germans and their approaches to beer and life. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit beyond me at the moment, but I'll keep it in mind as I improve. Furius (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I should have thought of you at User_talk:Johnbod#Mathilde_Cross.... The second cross is now the lead image at Middle Ages (an FA). Any help you can give would be most appreciated; please let me know if you add anything. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

translation of history of art
Thank you, editor for a decade, for improving the quality of articles on the history of art by excellet translations from German, such as Essen cross with large enamels, and Italian, such as Selinunte, for cleaning up and adding structured facts, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that one more nomination is open for the third cross, asking for more citation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 763rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 763 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By a great request on my talk, I came across the Marienstiftskirche, - in case you have time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Things are a bit hectic at the moment, but I will see what I can do. Furius (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, - with a little time you could perhaps translate major things and leave details like bells' names to the Germans. A reader in English will know to expect more from the German side. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always find the bells' names fascinating! The names of individual organ stops, however... Furius (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three years now! - Could you get some more from de about St. Marien am Behnitz about the architecture, - I don't know those terms well enough? But only with source, please, it's up for DYK. Without source, only later ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four years! - I thought of you when I looked at the Katharinenkirche. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six years now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 14:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Furius, I hereby honour you for your enormous contributions to the project and wish you all the best for your personal and creative future! Please keep it up! Heartily yours, Der Spion (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 17:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry, but I really don't catch why you are putting some - quite random for me - ancient Egypt-related articles in this category that you've created... --Khruner (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khruner. The category contains items stored in the Egyptian Museum and also some people who have been particularly associated with the museum. It imitates the German Kategorie:Ägyptisches Museum (Kairo). In general, categories for museum collections seem to be more common on German wiki than English wiki, but I think they provide useful information (To potential visitors to a given museum, for instance). I think that the fact that the collections are quite random in every respect other than their shared current location strengthens the utility of placing them in a common category. Furius (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I totally agree about the first type you mentioned, but I have doubts about the second one: how do you - and anyone using this cat in the future as well - determine whether one is particularly associated enough? Sounds more like a catchall for me, considering that the Cairo Museum possesses something for almost every known ancient Egyptian people and topic, I guess... Khruner (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point! If it gets to be a problem then we can always divide the category into a sub-category for "artifacts in" and one for "people associated with" Furius (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to ask to get autopatrolled status. In this way the pages you create won't show up for control at the New pages feed. Great work. Yakikaki (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of your translation skills twice, today Soest Cathedral (de), before (to expand) Hildesheim Cathedral, mentioned here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These look like two interesting articles - I'm happy to help! Furius (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Soest, magnificent! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It might be a while before I get around to Hildesheim, though. Furius (talk)

Also no problem! What do you think of the article name, two moves already, and talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter and have a good Sunday Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Furius, I just wanted to kindly point out the revised German version of the above article to you - you might be interested in adding resp. changing some details... Best regards,--Der Spion (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know! Things are a bit busy right now, but the longer I take, the better the Aachen Cathedral article is going to get, I'm sure! Furius (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

de:Goldschatz von Vettersfelde - pretty short. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Might be a day or two, though. Furius (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks very much. If you get into Hildesheim, some of the things there would be great some time - the doors, the column etc. Johnbod (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all those redlinks on the Hildesheim cathedral page greatly bother me. I will make them my next focus. Furius (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I do get round to translating them, btw, what should I call them? I'm never sure whether to translate the names of these things or not - but I assume there is a policy? Do the names I've assigned on the Hildesheim Cathedral page look alright? Furius (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though Bernward's Doors and Bernward's Column are well-known, especially in German, I'd go with Hildesheim Cathedral Doors and Hildesheim bronze column, redirecting the others. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object, but both seem a bit too harmless (or general) for unique pieces of art, telling a story. Hildesheim Christ column? The rose name was taken and is now blue, so will some of the others be eventually, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at Google and Aachen, I started a stub Hezilo chandelier, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New day: it was moved to Hezel chandelier, however I don't find that name in a good source. Did I miss one. We should not invent a name if there are names in sources. We can move the bishop, if they have to match. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I wasn't really thinking. I moved it to match the name our wiki uses for the chandelier's namesake, Hezel of Hildesheim. Maybe we should move him. Or maybe I should accept that inconsistency is part of life. Apologies again for acting without discussion. Furius (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just move it back, and let's discuss what to do with the bishop. We could pipelink him in articles where the chandelier is mentioned, or even move him, if there is no strong preference for an English name (which seems to be a Hebrew word, in this case). - I started the other chandelier and the doors, will do the column next. The short names (example Barbarossa chandelier, no genitive, no location) seem to be unique, I don't see a need for disambiguation, as we say St John Passion and mean Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing that this list has Hezilo and only few articles have Hezel, I suggest to move the bishop. The same list has Godehard, and I don't see any reason to translate that name to Gotthard either, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds like a good idea. "Gotthard" and "Hezel" are just as foreign to English as "Godehard" and "Hezilo", so this is not a case of "William" instead of "Wilhelm". Furius (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Hezilo: done. I hesitate for the Saint. The churches are called Godehard, one started,but he seems to be known as Gottardo when canonized. - I am not really familiar with such things. Thanks for the chandelier expansion! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, he probably does have to stay Gotthard because the Swiss pass named after him is known in English as Gotthard Pass. Furius (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also! Thanks for all your work on Hildesheim Cathedral! I think it is now a far better article than that on German wikipedia. Furius (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, several to go ;) - The pass is known in German also as Gotthard, I thought until recently that they were two people, - the things you learn reading Wikipedia. Can you translate the architecture part of his church in Hildesheim? - Should we list the churches dedicated to him on his page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will translate the article (though maybe I will take a little while). Listing the churches: although other saints' pages don't seem to do this, it sounds like a good idea. I will ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints to find out if they have a policy on this. Furius (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have St. John's Church, for example, combining churches dedicated to several St. John, but I think for the handful of Godehard and alias, an extra article may be too much, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the Hezilo chandelier: with different page numbers of one ref, I would like to upgrade the references, like in BWV 172. I was asked to ask permission first, would you be for it? I see strange green elements at the end of the translations from Latin to English, what's that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you should update the references. I don't understand Nikkimaria at all, I'm afraid. I don't see the green elements you mention (but I'm terrible with templates, so it's probable that I've done something odd). Furius (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think the green comes from the template, though. Time to look at the doors ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Furius, would you be interested in working on a translation of this article?--Der Spion (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but it might take me a little while to find the time. Furius (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told you translated Hildesheim Cathedral. I found it very interesting. Danke.

My sister was worried about her roses due to a late-spring snowstorm, so I sent her a link to Thousand-year Rose and said, "I think there's hope for your roses." A pic she took of one of them a few years ago can be seen here. [1] Sca (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To keep in mind: Here's another one for you: de:Sakramentar Heinrichs II. - probably not done yet, though. Greetings,--Der Spion (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now done – as well as de:Sternenmantel Heinrichs II.ǃ ;-) Best regards,--Liuthar (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To make you strong and healthy for upcoming challenges! Der Spion (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to this article. I've noticed that you've mis-typed a couple of citation template parameter names. If not typed correctly, the citation doesn't display properly and the page gets added to a category of pages with errors. You typed "access date", which breaks the template; the correct parameter name is "accessdate", without the space. Another typo was using "Title"; the parameter name is not capitalized, and should be entered as "title". Just a friendly heads-up so you can avoid similar errors in the future. It's helpful to scan the reference list after adding citations to make sure they are error-free; errors are indicated by red text and usually suggest a solution. Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 23:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, bother! I thought I'd caught them all, but in my hurry I missed more than a few. Thanks for tidying up my mess. Furius (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The doors look much improved, thank you! Should the chandeliers also have a capital in the article title, like "Doors" and "Cathedral". I simply copied the other from the Barbarossa, but the longer I look the more I don't see a difference between doors and chandelier. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place on the title of this article at Talk:Melancholia#Requested_move. All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that you need a source that they are "most obscure" and "second most obscure"? What makes him more obscure than "Unknown", King of Elam c. 821 BC? What makes him more obscure than his various Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek contemporaries? Furius (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll tell you. We have no idea who the hell he is or if his "son" was really his son or just a briefly lucky member of the regime. The various Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greeks who ruled Afghanistan and Pakistan at least had names that were recorded. We know NOTHING about these two guys....and yes, the "Unknown", King of Elam (c. 821 BC) comes very close, but the two men in question were in the first century BC, a time when a vast amount of historical material survives. I mean we know all about all the major Romans from Marius to Augustus. We know a hell of a lot about the last of the Selucids and even more about the Ptolomies. The Chinese had lots of records about all sorts of "lost civilizations" in Central and East Asia.

There are these two BLANKS just sitting there. Two major personages. Erased from history with just a couple of gaping holes in the record to mark their place. Kings of major empires are almost NEVER erased from history like thisEricl (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't as unusual as you are making out for kings from East of Judaea - they blip in and out of historical knowledge all the time because the literary evidence only records them when they interact with Rome. Mostly they are identified based on coins which are less than perfect: (cf. Seleukos VII, who blipped into existence due to the discovery of two coins [2] and then blipped out again when someone else analysed them: Hoover, O.D. 2005. “Dethroning Seleucus VIII Philometor (Cybiosactes): Epigraphical Arguments against a Late Seleucid Monarch.” ZPE 105, 95-99.). These two are likely exactly the same (I say likely, because the only source cited for their existence is an internet article which no longer exists). But my point is that this is a subjective judgement that you have made without a source - it is original research, and original research bound up with all sorts of assumptions which wikipedia editors don't get to make about what counts as a major king and what counts as obscure (apparently we know titles and exact reign dates (!) for both of them) - are they really more obscure then than a king who might not have existed? Furius (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can be pretty sure that someone who rules a MAJOR country and who is so completely erased from history that we don't know his name has got to be as obscure as you can physically get. It's the fault of the Sassanids more than anyone else, as when Fardousi wrote the Shah-Nama, he couldn't find any records of the Arcaids AT ALL. Horribly sad....Ericl (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Great works you've been doing in the meantime - congratulations! Did you have a look at that one yet? Might be interesting for you... If you want to see more on medieval objects I have frequently been working on, feel free to check out my user page! There will be more coming soon... Best regards,--Liuthar (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good one! - Do you remember St. Godehard? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda Arendt! I do remember him and his city, but time has been limited and there were so many articles that I didn't know where to start!

Furius (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That guy perhaps later, but how about de:Tintenfassmadonna for the reopening on 15 August? Problem: only one source, and that doesn't support details. There are many other sources about the restoration that I could add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! But I think I won't be able to before Thursday. Furius (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created a stub of two lines. As soon as I hit save, a bot noticed copyright vio, - handle the German with care ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Furius, it's been quite a while since we were talking, but I'd like you to know that there's a quite grand discussion running these days about another complete overhaul of the German article on the Aachen Cathedral. I thought you might be interested, and as you will see, I've also already inserted the German Expand template. Maybe you want to wait for the German article's revision before you start dealing with the English version – of course, only in case you're interested. The illustration here is also fairly poor, as I also recently tried to remark within the article. I'd be glad to hear from you in this matter. Best regards,--Liuthar (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liuthar, the German article looks much better and I certainly want to update the English version! When the German article is stable I will happily do it (and update the pictures as well). Other commitments however may delay me, and I hope that you will forgive me in that case. Best regards, --Furius (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alreadyǃ And have fun. Greetings,--Liuthar (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Furius: Hey, how's it going? I just wanted to ask you what you think especially of the introduction. As in the German version, I do still find it somewhat meagre for a monument of this historical importance, to tell the truth. And what about you? Yet, I'm not quite sure in fact which information should be added at the beginning... Do you have any idea? Hope to hear from you soon. Best--Liuthar (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for honoring me by translating my German article about the Anubis Shrine of king Tutankhamun's tomb; noticed this quite late and was not aware it was such interesting at all. But thank you, kind regards --Sat Ra (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You turn out very good articles, so I was happy to translate it - and now lotus chalice as well. Furius (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment - did not know it was that good, I just work. I try to get everything about a topic before I start an own article - or having gathered most important and enough information about it. Takes a lot of time. I am busy with other things than writing own articles in German Wikipedia most times. Everything else is a product of private research. Thanks for taking the lotus chalice either. I added much in the German version of Head of Nefertem (de: Kopf des Nefertem) recently, which may now be complete. While doing that I was working also on this one too because it is connected closely: de: Lotos (Altes Ägypten). It is about the lotus in Ancient Egypt. If you want to add anything you should look for an English version of the book of the dead (the spell's numbers are the same). There should be much more articles about the treasure of Tutankhamun ... but it takes hard and extensive research. The golden throne and mask are waiting (still pausing), like the canopic chest as well. Will try get one of them ready the next months. But for finishing I need some more scientific literature. Thanks to you and and your work! --Sat Ra (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Furius, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Vladimir Mikhailovich Vikentyev. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 06:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Fine Arts
		For all your great translations and contributions to articles on art. Thank you! Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, any chance of doing him? There's a shortish German article here - but "Conrad" is usual in English. The Dutch article is longer, and the French one different, with stuff on his works in modern France. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German, French and Spanish done. Can't read the Dutch or the Ukrainian, I'm afraid. Furius (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added to & DYK-ready now, if you want to do it. Or I can later. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done at Template:Did you know nominations/Conrad Meit. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Another, when you have time, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_Cerere_et_Baccho_friget_Venus. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also done. The Latin offers a quote from Byron's Don Juan, which doesn't really fit anywhere as the article stands. Furius (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thanks! Meit is queuing for DYK, though the pic was too explicit, or something! Sine Cerere et Baccho friget Venus for stalkers. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As I know you regularly translate articles from German wiki, I wondered if I could interest you in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki. You can use the German workspace pages to organize missing German articles and work towards them etc. For instance you could list missing articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/German/Buildings and map out what is missing still. If interested, please add your name to the list on the wikiprojecy talk page with a tick as instructed and add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/German, and when I update I'll add you to the main page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you translate the Mezri Haddad one? That's the biggy on French wiki haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, I am not an expert, but the source that I am using states that those items (chandelier, pulpit, etc) that I moved into the treasury are in it. My source is a reputable source; however I could be wrong. If you have reputable sources that state the opposite, I have no issues leaving it as is, as I just want it (the article) to be accurate. My source is The Dictionary of Art and the section on the treasury is written by Joachim Gaehde. I will leave it as is, until we figure out the best solution. I will also post up on the talk page to get others thoughts on the matter. Thanks. speednat (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dictionary of Art uses as it's source on the Treasury, E.G. Grimme's book Der Aachener Domschatz, I belive the Aachen Cathedral Treasury from 1972. Again, I have not read that book, but it does seem clear as the quote states that 210 later additions to the treasury occurred since the original group including and then he lists a group of them with the aforementioned included. Let me know what you think.speednat (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, maybe I am making more of this than needs to be. I have some errands to do today, let me mull things over and I will see what percolates to the top.speednat (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to this on the talk page. Hope your errands go well :) Furius (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment! From the short German article. This is a Pax (liturgical object) (= kusstafel). I'm dubious it is a reliquary at all, unless it specifically says there's a relic in it - Reliquie#Osculatorium is completely wrong to say these normally are reliquaries. I would call it the Eberbach Pax. Cheers! Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed it is so - an indulgence granting medallion. Furius (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! But give me a saint's toenail any day. Fantastic, thanks very much. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something a bit different! If you get a chance. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nainsukh. There was an engaging short programme on Radio 4 today. I'll try & hunt for more pics. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Many thanks, Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the main page Victuallers (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. And thank you. Success Charles01 (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job. Can you finish off the last German one Ernst Heinrich Kneschke?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Gerhard Schaffran, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just linked to Münster Cathedral and saw that there is almost nothing - 750 years the present building, more history before! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's pretty shocking! I'll see about producing a translation on Sunday, but it might have to wait until the weekend after.

Furius (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few major things soon would be better than this, - we will possibly need all the detail. I was invited by friends to the celebration last year but didn't look then, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of Münster looks pretty under-represented. I'll chip away at the city for the next month - so hopefully things will look better come August! Furius (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help (pass it on) Victuallers (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Lac Flammarion page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered on my talk page. Eustachiusz (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furius, I wasn't sure whether you'd seen the reply to your hook suggestion for this DYK nomination, which noted that the article would need some adjustment so it could be used. Please respond there, so the nomination can proceed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Feather Barnstar
		For the creation of great articles over a long period of time. Love your work! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I created the new category before seeing the old one. I've now patched together a general rock relief article. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

de:Schwanenservice (new, short), de:Johann Joachim Kändler as expansion, fr:Manufacture nationale de Sèvres? As time allows, cheers, Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say porcelain has ever captivated me, but perhaps that just means that I need to give it more attention! Will take a look at these as I am able and see how my opinion changes. Furius (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - and see below - they beat me to it! Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marienkirche, Dortmund? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add now, it's ready for DYK, more rather later, please. Next wish: I came across Limburg Cathedral and noticed translation errors, such as "sharp crossing tower" for "spitzer Vierungsturm", not so sharp. Would you have the time to go over the rather short translated text, for such things? You seem to have the vocabulary at hand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but as you'll have noticed, I'm finding it a bit hard to find time at the moment. So, sadly, it may not happen soon. Furius (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I have done it, but I admit to getting a bit lost with all the names for church services in the "bells" section - perhaps you could doublecheck? In particular, what are Weihegottesdienste (ordinations?), Karmessen (Easter masses?), and Priesterdonnerstag? Perhaps you'd be willing to create entries for these church terms on Wiktionary, for future reference? Furius (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First thank you! I am not sure about the English terms but will try to explain: "Weihe" means dedication (like to be priest, but could also be a chapel, an organ ...), "Kar-" is in the Holy Week (Karfreitag = Good Friday), - no idea about the Thursdays. You don't have to translate every word ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I know I don't have to translate every word, but it is sad to lose information and it bothers me when I don't understand something. Furius (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed your work in translating some minor ancient Egyptian burials from de.wiki. Well done, I encourage you to keep going, and since you evidently are a prolific page creator, I would ask you to add your new pages related to ancient Egypt in this page, which provides a valuable index for who, like me sometimes, monitors any changes in such articles via this special page. Khruner (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, er, Grüss dich. Gerda mentioned you here. Sca (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting; I will do it, but I'm not sure when. Furius (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

next: I wanted to add the new swallow's nest organ (not by me) here, but - no organ yet, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furius: I am the person who edited the Canopus Wikipedia entry to note that the star is now visible from China, but wasn't in past eras, because China did not extend as far south then. You augmented my edit to be consistent with the historical nature of the paragraph. I read your bio and your article-list and am curious about your interest in Canopus -- is it just the Dunhuang manuscript? Robert Ayers, mostly interested in astronomy, but have visited Dunhuang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:103:3D9A:4EA7:AD9F:BC9F (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I am interested mainly in history, but am deeply in awe of all the things astronomers reveal about the universe. And of course, given the age of the light when it reaches us, their work is a kind of history too, I suppose! Furius (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some requests from the French Wikipedia. Roger Guérillot, Maurice Yaméogo, and Philibert Tsiranana. I might take a crack at these but I can't read French that great so my translations might be somewhat inaccurate. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will have a go. Furius (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Here is another (that I may beat you to, we'll see. If I write it I won't forget.): Antoine Darlan. Also, Barthélemy Boganda is a FA but is significantly longer of the frwiki. Have a good day. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Yes, I noted Boganda. I might see about improving that one. Furius (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads up, English sources are preferable to french sources, so I would go about straight translating Boganda. I would try to interweave the translated material with what is already there, always giving the nod to the English language sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 04:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been taking that approach - although the French article seems to already incorporate most of the English sources. Furius (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go further, may I ask: you are reviewing all those new French sources (Pénel, Serre, Pascal, Kalck 1995, etc.) yourself, right? Because that's sort of a principle when it comes to FAs: that all material added is personally reviewed by the editors doing the adding. So I trust you've been making your way to the Bodleian Library, pulling those books off the shelves and checking every line for accuracy.

Also: you are, I hope, keeping in mind WP:FACR point 4, and not going into unnecessary digressions, correct? - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I hadn't been doing that. I have reverted the changes. Furius (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I don't mean to come across as heavy-handed, rude or inconsiderate with you. I do appreciate the work you've been putting into Africa coverage, and in principle don't mind a judicious expansion on Boganda. It's just that FAs are held to a pretty high standard, and the additions seemed to dilute that. No hard feelings, I hope, and best of luck moving forward. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your translation work. Just a note to say that on en.WP, years, dates, and common terms are generally not linked. Tony (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Furiusǃ Long time no see. Would you maybe be interested in this article about the Talisman of Charlemagne?--Liuthar (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for translatingǃ--Liuthar (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Translation Barnstar
		Hello Furius1 Congratulations on all the great translation work you have been doing about the deities of the ancient Anatolian civilizations. CeeGee 10:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks! Furius (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you so much for cleaning up the fluff and quotefarms at First Fitna. I am happy to see other editors taking up brooms against Johnleeds1's walls of unencyclopedic text. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Furius (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Gerard David, London) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Furius (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you or Charles01 translate Huy of Champasak from German wiki?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thanks for the good wishes, Dr. Blofeld! I've done it, but note that all the de articles on Champasak princelings are sourced from this website [3], which is in English. I'm a bit nervous about how close the paraphrase is. Furius (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's Church, Berlin, is linked in a DYK hook, - look how much more there is in German! If you do, please drop "Roman", - our article is simply Catholic Church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't done any German churches in a while! I will do it next week. I'll be writing "Roman Catholic" - as my grandmother taught me to; you can delete the "Roman" afterwards if you prefer it without. Furius (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Understand, am always tempted to write violoncello ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will be linked from a DYK hook tomorrow, in about 16 hours, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not going to manage to do it by then - factors external to the wiki have intervened. Furius (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You made it presentable, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you translate this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sometime in the next few days - will make a change from Italian government structures. Furius (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you add more from here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you or Gerda Arendt start this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Furius. How are you doing? You're doing a wonderful job here – and already did in many respects for articles dealing with Aachen. Thank you so much once moreǃ Now, if you should once have a little more time again, you also might be interested in the article linked above about the Aachen pilgrimage. This could be in fact a very neat article for translation, I guess. All the best--Liuthar (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you translate this from German wiki for me?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, not until some time in the new year, I think - things are pretty flat out at the moment. Furius (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of European Merit
		I, Vami_IV, award the Barnstar of European Merit to Furius for their participation in the European 10,000 Challenge, no matter how minor. ...What haven't you done for the Challenge? –Vami_IV✠ 02:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Furius by Vami_IV✠ on 02:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I've been doing some research for a project about the size of the Western Roman Army and came across the Size of the Roman army article. I wasn't sure if it was you that had done most of the writing on that page, but if it was, I had a question about a citation. If it was you that added citation 42 (AHM Jones' History of the Later Roman Empire, talking about where he claims that the army had roughly 600,000 soldiers), I was wondering if you could direct me to where exactly in the book it talks about that. The citation says pp 1.449-450 but in the online copy that I'm reading, pages 449 and 450 in the first volume don't talk about army size. Sorry for such a specific query, I was just wondering if maybe the edition you read was different than mine!

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdnpoli3121 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cdnpoli3121! I translated the article from the Italian wikipedia, rather than writing it myself... and the problem that you have identified is a translation error. The reference should be pp. 1449-1450, of volume two (in Italian they write 1.000, rather than 1,000, hence the mistake). Hope that helps! Furius (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing Achaean League to fix an EB1911 source. Looking through the page I noticed two inline citations without support long ones. I used the Wikiblame tool to identity the edit Revision as of 14:39, 5 March 2017 by Furius. I then searched for "ceding the territories that he had lost in Greece". It throws up 3 pages with the identical text. As the article History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) was created after your edit (09:07, 22 March 2017‎), your edit must of copied text from Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Please read WP:Copying within Wikipedia and particularly the section "Attribution is required for copyright". If you persist in copying text between articles without giving the requited minimum attribution after this warning your account may be blocked.

There are secondary reasons for including such attribution when copying between Wikipedia articles see the section "Other reasons for attributing text" in particular it makes the type of error you caused (when you copied partial citations) much easier for another editor to fix. Notice that when user:PericlesofAthens created the article "History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)" (s)he included in the editorial comment "creating article by splitting material from Macedonia (ancient kingdom), and summarizing this material in that main article" that is all that is requited for an adequate copyright attribution. -- PBS (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW copyright is exactly the same if you copy and translate text from another Wikipedia language. In which case if the copy was from the French article then you can use the same method of attribution eg "Copied and translated text from the French article fr:Ligue achéenne" -- PBS (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have done that. I'm sorry. Furius (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems you were unaware until now that copying within Wikipedea without adequate attribution was a copyright violation, but all is not lost.

Make an inconsequential edit (eg add a space to the end of a sentence) to all of the articles to which you have copied stuff in the past and add an editorial comment stating when (time stamp) and where (linked page name) you copied the text.

Reviewing ones edit history for mistakes like this is boring, but it will fix your errors, show good will which means that there will be no need for a copyright investigation.

There is a tool which is used to check a contributors edit history. You will find the link in the "copyright investigation: instructions: survey" but here it is for convenience "contributor surveyor". I think that at the weekend the tool is not active so you will probably have to wait until Monday before you can run it.

-- PBS (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so merciful. All articles now have a link indicating attribution either in the edit summary or through the talk page template. This has been a truly demoralising experience and I think I have had enough of this place for some time. Furius (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not retiring over this Furius. You are a good editor and I hope you can take a quick wikibreak to freshen up. I can see how this would be demoralizing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiStripe for reviewing one Milhist article at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks Furius (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Runtiya—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 205.173.157.142 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think we've sorted out nearly all of the ambiguous links to Akhethetep. There's just one left, in Neferirkare Kakai. I assume this is Akhethetep (son of Ptahhotep), but I've left it as I'm not sure. Can you take a look please? Thanks, Certes (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Furius,

I've been spending hours reverting vandalism that a series of IP accounts (66.210.239.21-66.210.239.25) made over January and February. There are hundreds of edits primarily to year articles (like AD 82) and biographies of ancient figures (like Marcus Atius), where the editor altered the birth or death date by a year or so. This has resulted in several categories being deleted since it appeared that no one was born or died during certain years and the categories were empty when that was really not the case. Since not a lot of content was removed (often the edits are 0 bytes), these tiny edits are hard to detect and often were individually reverted by well-intentioned editors while the IP accounts' edit histories were not examined.

I'm writing to you because as I've been reverting this vandalism, I've seen your edits to these same types of articles. I'd like to ask you that if during your editing, you see this pattern of vandalism, if you could let me or another admin know so we can block these accounts. Needless to say that these edits took little time to do but involved much more time cleaning up. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification; that's really pernicious vandalism, so I will keep an eye out. Furius (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I get that you thought reverting was the easiest way to add in sources, but what would have been more advisable is add in each example as you had sources for them. As for the sources, I would like for you to confirm for me that they explicitly stated that they were rump states. As I explained in the article discussion, we are not allowed to be a lens or filter for the source information. In an article that lists a specific quality of a thing, the sources must explicitly note that quality. We cannot make that leap of definition.
Please confirm that each of the sources you added explicitly note the examples as rump states. I'll wait a few days for your confirmation, out of the AGF. There will likely be repercussions if these sources are not explicit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all explicitly using the term "rump state" (the source for Ming refers to "rump Ming"). They are all accessible online (some through JSTOR, I admit). As for what would have been 'more advisable', it is usual to make use of the citation needed tag in these cases rather than deleting outright or indeed to actually look for some sources yourself. You chose not to do either of these things and you have now chosen to come here sabre-rattling and threatening repercussions, which does not strike me as particularly nice. Furius (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; I wasn't as nice as I could have been. THe history of the article has been somewhat of a checkered one, with clever little fellows adding maps and/or their own opinions trussed up with references from forum discussions. With the exception of the Pakistan one, you've done some fine sourcing work, and I apologize if my routine exasperation with being reverted upset you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check the source, Jason König, Tim Whitmarsh, Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire, page 180;"Tacitus characterises Nerva's reign as the beginning of a blessed new era, and then tells us Trajan is building on the start made by Nerva...".--Kansas Bear (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Ok. Furius (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Max Kunze has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Articles may be submitted for this as well as the regional Challenge you usually contribute to at the same time. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 19:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Merenre Nemtyemsaf I has been nominated for deletion. 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that, a few years ago, you translated the German article on the prehistory of Siberia that I wrote a decade ago. Great job and thanks a lot for making the article available to a much larger audience! Best wishes--Schreiber (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When copying text from other wiki articles, please ensure that full citations and bibliography are also transferred. I have added the missing citations in Austria-Hungary, but please be more careful in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join WikiProject Phoenicia You appear to be someone who may be interested in joining WikiProject Phoenicia. Please accept this invitation from a member of the project. I can't wait for us to work together! ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go!

I saw that you (rightly) noted that one of the theaters on this page isn't a "Roman" theater. This gets to a problem I've long had with this and the corresponding Greek theaters pages (which isn't so nice). That is, there really isn't a sharp distinction between these two categories and there also exist examples of the genre that are neither Greek nor Roman, depending on how you want to define those terms. What to do? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and of course, several of them are both Greek and Roman. "Greco-Roman theaters" is probably the solution. Furius (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Furius, do you know where one can find access to this particular source you added for use at Fourth Macedonian War:

• Helliesen, Jean M. (1986). "Andriscus and the Revolt of the Macedonians, 149-148 BC". Ancient Macedonia IV: Papers Read at the Fourth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, September 21-25, 1983. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies. pp. 307–314.

The only copy I could determine was an offline one at the national library of Australia [4], which is obviously out of the question. (Btw, I don't know how to thank you for your additions of sources. Most of them are good ones, and the article has much greater scope for expansion when I resume work on it.) HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder about that one... I have access to it, at the moment, through Hathi Trust's Emergency library service, but I don't have a way to share that. This weekend or next, it might be possible for me to go through and add appropriate references from it to the article?

You've been doing fantastic work on this; it is amazing comparing the article now with the state it was in before you started on it. Furius (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Another problem is with this – MacKay, Pierre Antony (1964). Studies in the History of Republican Macedonia, 168-146 BC (PhD). University of California, Berkeley. pp. 66–139. ISBN 9781085012713. There is a copy on ProQuest [5], and from what I can see it seems to be very informative, but when I try to search for it using wikipedia library it doesn't show up. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a particulary urgent matter, given that the accessible sources (the ones I have shifted to the source section) are enough for now to make a decently good article. However, these two seem to be quite rich in information on the subject. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done Helliesen now. Furius (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! However, the Helliesen source doesn't seem to be having much more titbits than the rest, so it looks like it wasn't as much of an enhancement over the other sources as I thought (can't blame her, there isn't much to go on this war because Polybius' account is largely destroyed, as is Livy's) — I'll just finish the article with the remaining sources then (one more reason might be that many of these other sources are already citing Helliesen, which might be why the content from Helliesen is sufficiently covered by them). The other source I mentioned is also not as much as I thought; it seems to be primarily about coinage of the Macedonian client republics, and those relating to the war are already covered by this source that I used for Andriscus - [6]. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Helliesen wasn't really trying to write a historical account of the war, just to make two key points: (1) that "Pseudo-Philip" is a misnomer, because Andriskos never claimed to be Perseus' dead crown prince and (2) that a big part of Andriskos' following was Macedonian emigrees drawn from Attalid Asia Minor. Furius (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Markus Gilli 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/Markus Gilli 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.

FiddleheadLady (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is to clarify your question on what I meant by Philip being a "now-obscure" son of Perseus. What I meant is that we do not know much about Philip son of Perseus, apart from the fact that Andriscus claimed to be him (well, Helliesen disputes that, but the rest agree on him being a Pseudophilippus), and that this son died three years after Perseus himself. Andriscus' assumption of the title Philip VI is given by Rubinsohn, p. 145. (though I have my doubts about whether he was right about the "VI" part; I'm not sure if they took regnal numbers - I've gone ahead and removed it). HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HalfdanRagnarsson: Thanks for that - I read it as saying that he was obscure at the time of the Fourth Macedonian War, which is why I was confused. I think it is worth saying that Philip the son of Perseus was dead. Yes, the use of regnal numbers is post-antique. But my point on "assuming the regnal name" is that if he was claiming to be "Philip" all along, then he didn't assume any new name at Pella. Helliesen's claim that he did is a corollary of the claim that he wasn't claiming to be crown prince Philip... Furius (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I am interested by Helliesen's claim. Most other sources provide the straightforward assertion that he was a Pseudophilippus, and that this pretence to royalty was what he used (along with Thracian and emigre help) to come to power. What theory, if not a pretense to royalty, does Helliesen suggest, and what evidence does she point to for it? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference is that she's saying that Andriscus was claiming to be another son of Perseus by a concubine, not the crown prince Philip (who was known to be dead). So it still involved a claim to royal status on Helliesen's interpretation. Furius (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revert of my addition of a short description template and text for Alexander Balas as not an improvement, I will not argue over editorial judgment. But could you please replace the text with your preferred short description instead of taking out the whole template? It will be useful for mobile and app users since they do not see default Wikidata text that you see on desktop browsers. Thanks! Aithus (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora Furius, I saw the note on your user page. I do a lot of quality rating for WPNZ and thus chances are that my efforts may have caused upset. Could you please point me to articles, regardless whether I rated them or someone else, where you feel that the rating ought to different? I'd be most happy to take (another) look.

I saw that you create Māori-related content. I haven't rated maori-importance in years as I feel that I am not widely-enough read to have a good handle on the various topics. I don't know whether Gadfium rates maori-importance (I do know that he does rate non-Māori content). If you'd like to get into rating itself, I could give some general guidance on the matter. I've put your page on my watchlist so if you reply, I'll see it. Schwede66 23:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for taking the time to respond to my venting! In retrospect, I agree with your ratings and they have spurred me to try to produce better articles going forward. Once I've finished producing articles on pre-European Tainui (I'm currently about halfway through), I'll be reviewing the set. At that point, I'd appreciate you taking another look at some of them - less for changing the rating and more for advice on how to improve. Furius (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be my pleasure. Schwede66 19:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Furius - thanks for creating new articles on historical Māori leaders... one request, though - could you please add even an approximate date to the first couple of sentences somewhere (e.g., this)? At the moment quite a few of these articles only have a date in the category links, which makes it harder for readers to tell when these people lived! Cheers, and thanks again! Grutness...wha? 10:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Grutness. I'm trying to do this. My problem is that only Jones & Biggs regularly give these estimates and they only do so for Tainui history. When I'm writing about Tuwharetoa stuff, the sources don't give dates as systematically, so sometimes I don't have specific refs, just the obvious inference from the fact that (e.g.) Te Rehu comes towards the end of Grace's section on "Traditional History to the End of the Seventeenth Century"... and the dates given by Jones & Biggs for people that Te Rehu is connected with (since he doesn't interact with Tainui history directly). Really, what would be best would be a Category:Before 18th Century in New Zealand or some such. Furius (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. It's understandable that dates are pretty vague for pre-Colonial NZ. Grutness...wha? 11:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites "Grainger 2001" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Or is it a typo in year? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•3 03:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora Furius! Thanks very much for your additions of sources to the bibliography for the bone people, really appreciated. Just wondering, are you intending to add content from these references? I was thinking about going through and seeing what I can add, but don't want to duplicate work if you're already intending to do that. Hope that makes sense. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora! Thanks for the message. No, it's not something that I plan to do any time soon, so if you're willing to add information from them to the article, that would be great. Equally, if you're not, I think it is worthwhile to have the citations there just as 'further reading'. My current main task is filling out pre-European history of Aotearoa, and I don't see myself finishing with that for many months / a few years. Furius (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes perfect sense! That's what I thought would be the case, and agree that it's worthwhile to have them as 'further reading' regardless. Thanks for your mahi! Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Furius. I've been watching your ongoing updates to the Westphalia article (thank you, especially since I'm the one who put the request for translation on the page), and I have a question / suggestion for the part of the "Reaction" section about the serfs. Since Prussia abolished serfdom in 1807 (see History of serfdom#Germany), your translation goes a bit astray there. I remember stumbling over Ablösung the first time I read the German article, and after puzzling over various translations for it, I remembered something I read (somewhere…) about German peasants gaining possession of the land they had worked in exchange for payments, also known as redemption – which is one of the translations for Ablösung.  Given that, I would translate the passage something like this:

The second major problem for unification was the question of the redemption of manorial rights by the peasants within the context of peasant liberation [with a link to "History of serfdom#Germany"]. Although a law was passed in 1820 that allowed for redemption through monetary rents, there were also numerous individual regulations and regional provisions. Redemption remained controversial until 1848 … etc.

If you think my translation makes historical sense, go ahead and make use of it.  If not, I'd suggest trying to find a subject matter expert on German peasant liberation to clarify.

GHStPaulMN (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done! (and feel free to make changes directly if you notice anything else) Furius (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming that this translation of 'Ablösung' is spot on, GHStPaulMN Schwede66 01:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You entered a comment [7] at the subject article which appears to have been placed under the wrong topic section. I'm not sure which topic you were commenting on, so could you please move you comment to the topic to which it refers. Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's in the right place. Furius (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Furius. If your going to return the Bisi references to the Carthaginian coinage you will need to provide a full cite as at the moment they are undefined in the article. Please see Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If not I'll remove them again, as they have remained undefined in the article for several years now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I've done that now. Furius (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You either have a better library or more acces than me, I spent several hours trying to confirm the details of Bisi works but the only place I could find that specific year and page numbers was in Jenkins books. It's certainly wasn't in any of the Annali I checked through, I had thought it was a mistake of somekind by Jenkins. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ancient numismatics is terrible for extremely obscure only-offline journals. But I do have access to several extremely good libraries for this topic, so do let me know any time you come across obscure refs in ancient history / numismatics articles, because there's a good chance that I'll be able to track them down. Furius (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, I'll keep that in mind. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a refactor to the talk page in the subject thread here, which affects a comment you made there. It doesn't appear that the comment you made was intended for the section on animals, but I'm not sure where it was supposed to go. Could you please check it and make sure it ended up where you intended it go. Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Egyptian overseers of fields has been nominated for deletion. 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) 08:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For your contribution to Caesar's civil war, on the inauthenticity of the Rimini inscription, I informally award you a copy of this meme. https://i.imgflip.com/4jqby0.jpg. Ifly6 (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why refer to someone as their non-preferred pronouns?? That’s literally transphobic and harmful. Also, just because this is a historic person, does not negate the fact that Elagabalus’s pronouns were she/her, she wanted to be referred to as Lady/Empress, and explicitly stated she wanted female parts. You realize LGBTQ+ people have existed throughout history, not just modern day contexts. These “historians” are just blatantly transphobic and contributing to transgender/transsexual erasure and LGBTQ+ erasure. Very strange but ok. There’s also many articles saying she was transgender and I’ll list some here: Articles: https://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/tgi-bios/elagabalus https://www.spectrumsouth.com/transgender-lives-empress-elagabalus/

https://www.makingqueerhistory.com/articles/2017/9/24/elagabalus-the-empress?format=amp Lastly, the pronouns should be updated to either she/her or they/them, not he/him, because Elagabalus considered herself a woman, not a man, and it’s transphobic to call her a he. Gatorbearratica (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You recently added this redirect, and I can't figure out if it's an alternative scientific name (vs Bison priscus) or how it otherwise relates to the article. If it is an alternative name, could you add it to the article with an explanation? Thanks! Rusalkii (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii: There's been some kind of error. I don't think I've edited any bovine articles in the last seventeen years... It looks like the redirect was created by User:Aranae? Furius (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There sure has been, I accidentally sent this message to the person who created the article instead of the redirect. Sorry for the confusion! Rusalkii (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

I noticed that you reverted several of my tags for wikiprojects without an explanation, like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1131680846&oldid=1131667166&title=Talk:Arsinoe_II&diffmode=source. Could you explain why you reverted them? And in the future, I strongly recommend you provide explanations when you revert edits. Mason (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison, you tagged a very large number articles that were already tagged as part of that wikiproject. Furius (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that that's why you reverted. I hadn't been aware that the royal, nobility wikiproject was the same as the biography project. Mason (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dio Chrysostom has been nominated for deletion. 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) 19:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda Arendt! Nine years is a very long time. I am in Germany at the moment, so am inspired to go back to doing more on Germany's historic monuments and artefacts... and then I can actually go to see them as well! So, if you have any suggestions, please do let me know. Furius (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the Ptolemaic Dynasty is a tough case but the infoboxes of Ptolemaic rulers are insanely inconsistent. Inconsistency is an unavoidable part of Wikipedia but this is just laughable. I understand that just “Pharaoh” may be suboptimal when it comes to Ptolemaic rulers but bluntly reverting my changes without suggesting alternatives is truly not helpful. I’m absolutely open to suggestions. Placing “(Ptolemaic Kingdom)” or “(King/Queen of the Ptolemaic dynasty)” in small font below Pharaoh might do it. User23242343 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User23242343. This is how the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle works. I'm glad that you're open to suggestions. The issue is that the Ptolemaic kingdom was not coterminous with Egypt, so the "role" field should reflect that. In my opinion, the best option is "[[Basileus|King]] of the [[Ptolemaic Kingdom]]<br/>[[Pharaoh]] of [[Ancient Egypt|Egypt]]" (currently used on Ptolemy III's page). Furius (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However: 1) Saying "Pharaoh of Egypt" is unnecessary, as the title is exclusively associated with the ruler of Ancient Egypt and I believe it is even technically wrong. 2) Having "King of the Ptolemaic Kingdom" and just "Pharaoh" in the same parameter is bizarre and some may argue that it is redundant as they are the one and the same position. However, I agree with you that Ptolemaic pharaohs should be ‘highlighted’ in some way so I’ve taken the liberty to alter the pharaoh template and add a parameter, which I’ve used on Ptolemy II Philadelphus as a demonstration. User23242343 (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor,

I saw you are reverted my edits. Maybe you are a non-Buddhist. Bro, do you know Lord Buddha who he is ? Do you know who Buddha is? Insult the Buddha There is a false belief that Lord Vishnu is an avatar in Hinduism. Get used to letting only the truth in the world. Never get ready to spread falsehoods. If you insult the Buddha, you will commit a great sin. Recreate my edit.❤ Maco thiwanka (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is about the Hindu belief. It is a falsehood to claim that Hindus do not believe this. Even if they are wrong, WP must approach it in accordance with WP:NPOV, following the guidance of WP:RS, rather than inserting our own beliefs. Furius (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This insult to the Buddha will not benefit the Hindus. I can't stand this insult to the great religious leader who discovered Buddhism. For this, I will get a very talented person who writes Buddhist articles in Wikipedia to remove this idea from this article. It is absolutely permanent.😡💔🔥 Maco thiwanka (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ypati, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing our discussions here from Talk:Roman_Empire#Languages I thought I'd post it here as we're fine tuning and to not fatigue the other editors!

This is my latest revision. Note I've changed the text on Dickey now that I've reviewed her book with a sentence that touches on her research and lightly makes the point about the "Roman Greek" that became.

Latin and Greek were the main languages of the Empire, but the Empire was deliberately multilingual. {Note 1} Andrew Wallace-Hadrill says, "The main desire of the Roman government was to make itself understood". At the start of the Empire, knowledge of Greek was useful to pass as educated nobility and knowledge of Latin was useful for a career in the military, government, or law. The Constitutio Antoniniana in 212 CE would have changed the dynamic of Latin speakers into a minority. After Diocletian's reforms in the 3rd century CE, there was a decline in the knowledge of Greek in the west. Spoken Latin later fragmented into the incipient Romance languages in the 7th century CE following the collapse of the Empire’s west.

There was never a legal requirement for Latin in the Empire, but it represented a certain status. High standards of Latin, Latinitas, started with the advent of Latin literature. Due to the flexible language policy of the Empire, a natural competition of language emerged that spurred Latinitas, to defend Latin against the cultural imperialism of Greek. Over time it was used to project power and a higher social class. Different emperors up until Justinian would attempt to require the use of Latin in various sections of the administration but there is no evidence that a linguistic imperialism existed during the early Empire.

Latin and Greek’s mutual linguistic and cultural influence is a complex topic. Latin words incorporated into Greek were ubiquitous by the imperial era, especially for matters of military, administration, and in trade and commerce. Greek syntax, literature, poetry and philosophy influenced Latin language and culture.

The dominance of Latin and Greek among the literate elite obscures the continuity of other spoken languages within the Empire.

Note 1. Its been called 'bilingualism' but that's only true of the educated and so Bruno Rochette suggests it’s more appropriate as a diglossia but concedes this still does not adequately explain it, as Greek was "high" against Latins "Super-high". Latin experienced a period of spreading from the second century BCE, and especially in the western provinces, but not as much in the eastern provinces. In the east, Greek was always the dominant language, entrenched from the long Hellenistic Age that predated the Empire

Biz (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Furius,

I'm curious why you removed the category from Bethmann Hollweg and Hertling since they were both chancellors?

Thanks, GHStPaulMN (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, they're already in Category:20th-century Chancellors of Germany, which is a sub-category of Category:Chancellors of Germany. Generally, articles should go in the most specific relevant category only (guideline at WP:PARENTCAT).

I believe this is the opposite of the system on de.wiki? Furius (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about de.wiki, but thanks for the clarification. Makes sense. GHStPaulMN (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	...for translating Fettmilch uprising! [I was notified because of the addition of a link to Alte Brücke (Frankfurt).] Thank you very much for your work! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @ToBeFree, Thanks! Furius (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did a brain dump of the easy stuff to seed the article. Not sure what my ability to do research and contribute here will be in the next month, but looking forward to seeing what you can add!

Modern historiography of Rome Biz (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Furius. You've added a lot of short form references to Cyrene, Libya, but they are missing their required cites. Could you add the required cites, or let me know what works the following refer to? "Kenrick 2013", "Grainger 2010", and "Hölbl 2001".
If you haven't already you can find out how to turn on the error messages for this type of referencing here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice new article.

★Trekker (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wp:EWN#User:McGregorNZ reported by User:Adakiko (Result: ) Cheers Adakiko (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Furius,

Category redirects are created differently than article redirects. Please look at the code/template on this page so you are aware of how they are created in case you have a reason to create another one in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! First, thanks for adding new sources. We should always try to keep up to date with recent literature if those new sources are well received: for that reason I usually wait for reviews to come out before adding anything (eg BMCR). Also, if it's possible to put them into the Further reading sections that would be best since that makes it clear that they are not cited in the article. ({{sfn}} scripts check for this actually.) Ifly6 (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take the point about further reading sections, which I neglected a bit in my haste, but I see no particular value to waiting for reviews. Peer review is part of the publication process (in most cases... I've not added things from known rubbish publishers like Pen&Sword). If something gets a bad review, we can always remove it.

This seems especially so for new textual editions or archaeological publications, which will always be important and often do not get reviews. Furius (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! All the same to you! Furius (talk) 09:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page German Archaeological Institute, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Gerda Arendt! This is a really nice message every year and it really helped today to receive it. Furius (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 10 is the last time, though, from now on you'll have to remind yourself ;) - I worked on a few churches recently, such as St. Joseph, Wedding and St. Martin, Oestrich, and would appreciate your expert glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you for your edit to Polyamblyodon gibbosum. I normally place the etymology of the generic name in the article about the genus. I also normally put etymology as a separate section, if not then the Taxonomy section should be renamed as “Taxonomy and etymology”. Obviously, it’s my preference for them to be separate. Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Quetzal1964! Thanks for your work! The article is so much better than it was before you came along and I see that there are a lot of other biology articles that are better thanks to you. Given your experience, please understand that I'm speaking as an outsider looking in:

• I agree that the etymology should be explained on the genus article, but I would suggest that it is useful to the reader to repeat it on the species article. If someone's only interested in one fish, they shouldn't have to read two articles in order to find out what the full name means. Of course, in cases where the genus etymology is complicated, it might be best to say "this is discussed elsewhere."
• I think very short sections that have no room for growth are generally undesirable, which is why I merged the two in this case. This is the approach used in Pallid sturgeon and Smooth toadfish, which are featured articles. If the etymology was complicated, like gorilla or kangaroo, then I would see the need for a dedicated section. In straightforward cases like this, I don't. I totally agree with your renaming of the section.

So, that was my thinking in making these changes. But perhaps there are other factors that I've missed - I know a little about Greek and Latin (hence my interest in the etymology!), but biology is not my field! Furius (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening from a misty east coast of Scotland. I have changed the section to Taxonomy and etymology.Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in East Building (Athenian Agora) you use an sfn reference "Travlos 1971, pp. 233–241". Unfortunately no such work is listed. this means that nobody can look it up, and adds the artcile to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing source it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Henner von Hesberg has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. – Joe (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Haitian literature, would you be interested in a wikiproject on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am belatedly realising how much work you have done on pre-contact Māori topics. I haven't delved into the articles deeply, but at first glance they look impressive. You seem to have been doing a great job. Thank you. Nurg (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:627 BC establishments has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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) 16:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:627 BC establishments has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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) 16:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Adoration of the Magi in the Snow (1563) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Sent: 18:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)) Ifly6 (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]