Sources[edit]

Bless you! Thank you so much for doing that. However did you figure out the problem? And what was the problem anyway?! They all looked fine when I checked them! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already put a notice on your talk page explaining it Avilich (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PA[edit]

Say, why did you restore that PA in the AfD? An admin removed it. not me. Is this really necessary? I was ivoting what I saw there and your personal attacks were removed, now you reinstated them. Was it an accident? Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You never explained to me how is that a PA. You straw-manned me, I asked you to stop doing that. The 'PA' the admin was presumably referring to was that subsequent comment in which I asked you to stop behaving like an 'immature child': this one I did not restore, duly following the admin's decision, though I maintain that neither was a PA at all. Avilich (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The admin erased all of it, and then you rewrote it without a pa. But suddenly now refactored the pa back in with a trolling edit summary. It is irrelevant I guess. I am not going anywhere with it, just wondered why. Lightburst (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was a mistake on your part when I consider your edit summary. I think you forgot that you rewrote it yourself. No hard feelings. Lightburst (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sulla's second civil war" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sulla's second civil war. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 6#Sulla's second civil war until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 02:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google[edit]

Hey I have a question. If you google "Christianization of the Roman empire" - or any of the set of "related questions" on either topic that they list at the bottom of the page - the article we just published is nowhere to be found. I am wondering why and what can be done about that.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you published the article just a couple days ago, presumably if you just wait a bit the thing will start appearing eventually Avilich (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned something new - again - and it looks like it may wait 90 days. Bummer. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs updating badly: Persecution of pagans under Theodosius I. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on nominating that one for deletion in the future but if you want to go ahead with it, be my guest -- just know which policies to cite if you do. Most of that article is unverifiable original research, with little potential for improvement that is not already covered by the Theodosius article itself. Avilich (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never nominated anything for deletion. It sounds scary. :-) How do I do that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I actually don't recommend that you do it right now. That article's not going anywhere and nobody's ever improving it, and I may nominate it myself later. Something I was planning on discussing with you was 'PoP in the late Roman Empire', more specifically its title. The current title isn't very good; there have been several discussions in the talk page, none conclusive. Avilich (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich PoP was on my list of articles to look at as well. Will do so now. Thanx. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! I've confused this with a different article - PoP is the one we've already worked on. So what's the deal with the title. I know it assumes facts not in evidence but so what? What else could it possible be titled? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you were planning on editing the more specific PoP (Theodosius), I figured anything you'd do would also fit in the broader PoP (LRE). I was planning to do some fixes myself in the future, and I wasn't aware you ever finished working on it. Anyway, would you agree that simply 'Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire' better reflects the actual scope of the article? It makes inherently sense to have articles discussing a broader concept before creating a spin-off page dealing with another more specific. And I'm not sure that there's enough coverage on persecution for it to be a standalone article. Avilich (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, I would agree to changing the title to 'Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire' and rewriting the lead to reflect that. I will go back to the original plane of a PoP Theodosius rewrite then I guess, though I am also okay with just deleting it. There is also one about the fourth century. Jeez, how many of these did this guy write? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps that change in title will require merging Decline of Greco-Roman paganism - with a bunch of editing - what do you think? A merge and a title change and two redirects? Yowza! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on simply getting rid of the PoP Theodosius and all the other low-quality spin-offs. Again, while we don't have a broader article in need of splitting we have no need for spin-offs in the first place. We already deleted the Ambrose one, if you remember. If you wish to write anything on Theodosius specifically, then I storngly encourage you to do so on his own article or on 'P in the CRE', and not on the PoP Theodosius, as it forces us to go through the trouble of merging content afterwards. Right now, I recommend starting a talk page discussion on PPLRE for moving it to PCRE. I'll offer my support, we'll see how it goes for a few days, and you can merge whatever you want from 'Decline' afterwards. Avilich (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I was going through FA review - for the second time - on Biblical criticism, it failed for two reasons. The review took too long, they said, because the article itself was too long. There was someone who kept advocating for it to be split into at least three articles, because "shorter articles are better". One guy was still in the middle of reviewing it when it was shut down "for lack of interest". Now, I know that I have a tendency to write long comprehensive discussions - this is both my avocation and my field of study - and I love the research. It keeps me current, and I often learn some new little tidbit. There is always more to learn. So here I am feeling a bit caught betwixt and between. I think the reviewer who said shorter articles are better is probably right. She had the best interests of WP at heart and even said I would get 3 FA articles out of it if I did what she recommended. But I just couldn't. It didn't seem like good scholarship to me. Probably no one will ever read that whole article, but for me, at least I know that I made all the information available to them if they ever want to or need to. To me, that's what an encyclopedia does - it makes the best compilation of information available to anyone who wants it. These are Research Papers that would pass muster in most any graduate school. At least that's the quality I want to turn out, always, and I know you share that 'obsession'. You want to remove all the crap you can find, while I keep trying to de-crap it! :-) We are like-minded about clean-up and quality. I will do things in the order you have conceived 'mon general' (imagine that in a French accent...). You have a plan. No rewrite on pop theo - I originally thought that was what you were suggesting, but as it isn't, I won't. I agree, it is now duplicated in the Theodosius I article. I will go suggest the title change. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another question[edit]

I want to add a link to the section on temple destruction from the Christianity and paganism article to the Theodosius I article. The former is longer and more detailed but probably doesn't all belong in Theodosius. I don't know how to link a section and can't find the wp instructions. Help... Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: try this, {{further information|Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire#Temple destruction and conversion{{!}}Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire § Temple destruction and conversion}}. Everything that appears left of {{!}} is the link, everything to the right is the actual text that appears in the page. Of course, ideally we should agree that this should be the article's title to begin with. I sense you're starting to agree with me on the PCRE issue, but the discussion there still hasn't been concluded. Avilich (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and yes, I was just doing what you asked before but now I actually agree it is the right title. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: lets bring that discussion to a close, then, I think we can both agree that more has been said than was needed. Avilich (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have to wait for the others to agree? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: We are waiting, but can't do so forever. It's the others' right to never agree at all, but at some point we'll have to decide if the opposing points brought so far are actually valid, and if those opposing really feel strongly enough to warrant an assessment that there is no consensus for a move. Both these points seem doubtful to me. Avilich (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it's 2 to 2, so there is no actual consensus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: read [[WP:NHC], consensus isn't determined by head-counts, but by arguments. Everyone is in agreement that the current title is inadequate, and only Richard really disagrees on the new proposed title (LL has barely commented at all). Neither of us has been convinced by the argument that CRE is somehow difficult to understand, or that it needs to be a formal scholarly topic in order to be a valid descriptive title. Do you think there's more to be said? Avilich (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more comfortable if you would go write this summary exactly - as word for word as you can - there, in that discussion, and ping them both asking them that final question. If then they don't respond, we can act accordingly. But it's right to give them one last chance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin & Settipani[edit]

Not that it matters, but I have corresponded with both individuals and met one a couple of times in real life. The sad fact is that if you read the small print, Settipani doesn't even present his material as a rendering of historical fact, simply possibilities. This is almost always overlooked by most people abstracting the material and tereating it as the factual conclusion of a scholar. I would suggest that nothing from the amateur self-publishing phase of his career merit being treated as a WP:RS, and absolutely nothing said in the dozens of threads on soc.gen.med over the decades to discuss his reconstructions. Agricolae (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antoninus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose[edit]

There is an ongoing problem at Ambrose with additions at the Theodosius section that I have reverted twice, gone to admin over, and have still gotten no response on Talk from the anonymous user who keeps putting it back. Any suggestions? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: you might want to know that warnings go on the editor's talk page, not the article's (consider accordingly moving the ones you posted), but sure, I'll take a look and help you out, just give me a moment. Avilich (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I posted it on the article's page because all they had was a special contributions page and no talk page to post anything on. I accidentally created the talk page when I went to post the notice there. Now the admin has posted there as well and I am unsure if they are even connected to it! I am unsure if they are unresponsive or honestly clueless. They have been reverted twice, so they are certainly aware of that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You're being sweet and helpful. I love it when you're sweet and helpful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: now you are acting the mother and therapist ;) By the way, talk pages get created when you post on them for the first time, that's perfectly ordinary. But warnings take up undue space in article talk pages, so you should definitely remove them from the Ambrose talk page and paste them on the IP's page. I can do it myself if you don't know how. Avilich (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, friends see and say things like that all the time. I think I can move it - let's see. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about first time posting creating a talk page, so that means this person has been notified and knows what's going on doesn't it? Son of a gun! I'll just remove it from the article's page in that case. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I'm not aware of the exact mechanics, but presumably IPs receive talk page notifications just as regular editors do. Certainly the admin noticeboard operates on that principle, so, by posting there, you've done all that needs to be done. Try also moving that big template-generated message, the one with the red sign: that goes on individual talk pages too. Avilich (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Cut and paste? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, correct. Avilich (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OKay, I moved the warning but left the discussion which is about the article after all. Thank you. If they add it back, I will report it to the admin. I wish they'd show up and talk about it. I can be flexible. Somewhat. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: looks like there's nothing else to be done for now. I'm always here to help. Avilich (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jenhawk777: guess who showed up again? Avilich (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG! Thank goodness it has already been removed and EdJohnston was right on top of it. Is it okay to thank an admin I wonder or does it sound like gloating? I am so very impressed with them. I don't think I could do what they do, but I am glad of someone can and does. The edit summary indicates I was wrong in giving them the benefit of the doubt. They knew exactly what they were doing. Still, I'd rather err on the side of kindness than go their way. Thank you again for your input. Are you ready for Christmas? We will be traveling to see family and I'm excited. Hope you are well and looking forward to the holiday season as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jenhawk777: I won't be doing anything too special myself, and I hope you enjoy your own holiday to the fullest. Avilich (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katarina (Doctor Who)[edit]

Technically, use of the Prod might be invalid as there was a a previous Deletion discussion (though not a useful one) at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ace_(Doctor_Who). GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that discussion, removed. Avilich (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War Machine in other media[edit]

DePRODded, but feel free to propose to merge back to the parent article. BD2412 T 03:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 31[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Argos.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DRN on Pagans[edit]

So what happened? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: rejected due to some procedural technicality, waited too long to file a request and there are other venues to discuss it. Avilich (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rupilia Faustina[edit]

You hadn't even merged her birth and death dates to her husband's page. 1 I've done that now. Mind you, I'm not sure if the dates are accurate as there is no inline citation. I've also included the name of her mother, through whom she was a grand niece of Trajan. It seems to me you were too hasty to delete without copying over relevant information which would otherwise be lost. Ficaia (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't bother with 'merger', that is, moving content and maintaining a formal attribution, for trivial data like unsourced birth and death dates (I've seen much of those already). Anyway, 'before 138' is just the article's way of saying that she died before her husband (a fact already mentioned in his article), and 'c. 87' is presumably made-up. We also don't know who her mother is and thus whether she was a grandniece of Trajan. Recent research suggests probably not. The possibility of it is already mentioned on her father's article, making a merger unnecessary. Avilich (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've tried to make a compromise on the page by mentioning the uncertainty of her parentage. 1. Thanks for improving the infobox by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ficaia (talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Jaime Reyes[edit]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Jaime Reyes, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Nice to see your irascible self back at Christianization stomping irreverently about leaving your muddy footprints all over my lovely prose. If you found fault with the references then I'm glad you did so. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: Sorry if I offended you, but I thought you'd get bored quickly if I went to your talk page and explained in detail everything wrong with that section. Couldn't let your hard work finally pay off with a GA in anything other than in good condition, now, could I? :) Suffice to say for now that the section was completely at variance with what the source (Bradbury 1994) said concerning who banned sacrifice: it was probably Constantine, not Constantius. Avilich (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. And I am not easily bored. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Please come to Christianization and put in your two cents under the peanut gallery. I don't want it to appear there is consensus for their views. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: For now I gave an input on the issue of splitting, since you already appear to know what to say concerning the rest. Avilich (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, of course I know what to say. That doesn't mean that having more than one person saying it doesn't also matter. But that's okay. You must do as you see fit. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I'm still watching to see how this will turn out, don't worry. Avilich (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Richard starts making bold edits, as he has now said, that affects article stability and the GA will automatically fail. Which he is well aware of, I know. I have asked the reviewer how long he can wait on that, but I am not hopeful. This makes me sad. Disagreement is here, on WP, not amongst scholars. It deserves to be GA whether they 'like' it or not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I'm not seeing any edits as of yet, though even then you can still revert anything you don't like. Don't be sad: what matters is your work itself, and I'm sure any article you write is good enough for GA status even if you don't manage to pass it through some meaningless formality. Avilich (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That helps me feel better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Fitzgerald (American football)[edit]

Thankyou for your helpful and wise comments on the deletion discussion for the article on Jamie Fitzgerald (American football). I am glad there are a few people standing up to Wikipedia being turned into a sports stat table.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: And thank you for this comment, which is refreshingly smart, to-the-point and concise in the midst of inefficient and waste-of-time discussions like the recent NSPORTS saga. Avilich (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing pronunciation templates from articles[edit]

Why are you removing pronunciation templates from articles on ancient Greek subjects? Are you following an accepted convention? Ficaia (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ficaia: I usually leave a wiktionary link, so that people can still find them easily. Avilich (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC) The pronunciation is always invariably identical to, and probably copied from, the "5th-century BC Attic" entry. Avilich (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Also, they're always either unsourced or just follow a very basic pattern that anybody can follow. Avilich (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC) I believe MOS:PRON is an accepted convention. Avilich (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People who dont exist[edit]

I do not accept that the people, where you complain of my votes, certainly did not exist at all, though their existence may be dubious. My point is that if they did exist they were non-notable and should not have a full article. I therefore vote to merge the article to a person connected with them who is notable, for example a husband or father. This is a common solution for NN people. Such information as does exist on the dubious person can then be included in that article. If someone searches for the dubious person, there will still be a redirect, so that the search will take them to that article. This is common solution for articles on people connected to a notable person, notability not being inherited. Where a person has been written about in historical sources (including inscriptions) and historians have written about them, there is some evidence of existence, even if later historians have concluded argued that earlier ones were wrong. It would be completely different if the whole thing was a HOAX and perhaps also in the case of an acknowledged mistranscription of an inscription. In both the cases you refer to, the source being cited was a blog, not a reliable source. The question was then whether there was a reliable source lying behind that or not. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmet, ND[edit]

Am tempted to DELREV Scotty Wong's close on Emmet, ND because they based their close on Clarityfiend's arguments (that Clarityfiend rolled back on) however I feel this may just be a waste of time given the numerical votes. What do you think? FOARP (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I share your lack of optimism as DRV is inherently inert, and I have doubts that some DRV regulars even have the disposition or capacity to understand the essence of your case or to argue beyond the numerical tally of votes. On the other hand, a de facto keep for a topic whose verifiability was not established, especially considering the large quantitative and qualitative gap between the arguments, reflects a very bad close. Wouldn't hurt to try, and it shouldn't be a waste of time if you only create the discussion and let it run its course afterwards (of course I'll give my support if you do start one). Avilich (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

emails[edit]

It seems that you are not receiving my emails. I will try sending you one directly.

Ah, I have your response now. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christianization[edit]

On the other hand, scholars have overall tended to minimize the impact of imperial legislation. Where is this from? It seems completely backwards. Scholars who have supported Gibbon, MacMullen, and violence have all over-stated the impact of legislation, not minimized it. I need to read whatever the source for this actually says please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence goes on to exclusively mention authors who don't. Who even agrees with Gibbon or MacMullen? If they were in the majority, it begs the question of why are you writing an article defending a minority viewpoint. Avilich (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems to me as if you are talking incircles now. I do not understand what this sentence is meant to be claiming. Please give me the source so I can read it myself, don't just tell me what you think it says. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire paragraph is dedicated to listing the views of authors who don't think legislation was a big deal. The sources are all there, they outnumber Gibbon and MacMullen, and based on that I conclude that the tendency in scholarship is to not follow Gibbon and MacMullen. Saying the the exact opposite, that scholars do believe that legislation was a big deal, is an unfounded assertion, one that contradicts the entire context. Avilich (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the sentence entirely as unsourced. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Stifle[edit]

Stifle (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

email[edit]

I am away from home right now and am unable to access my email from this old notebook I am using. How long can this wait? I can email you an alternate email for me that I might be able to access if needed. My mother is in the hospital and is probably dying. I don't know when I will be home again. Right now it feels like never. I just got a fail for the GA of Christianization. Worst review I've ever seen. Truly a crap job. Perfect timing for that. Let me know abut the email. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quick thing but nothing important, don't bother for now if you're in such a situation. Avilich (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On NSPORTS[edit]

So another editor has reverted my corrections in toto, and I have tried to elicit an explanation on their Talk page why they don't see the correction as a clarification of the existing text.

As I wrote in that other discussion, I am somewhat at a loss here. The requirements of NORG apply to sports organizations - not the GNG - regardless of what the text of NSPORTS says. The same is true of NBASIC for biographies; the differences from the GNG are small (and only marginally restrictive), but it is NBASIC and not the GNG that applies to biographies per WP:CONLEVEL, regardless of the text of NSPORT. So what is the problem with fixing a long-standing error? It reduces confusion, without making it any easier e.g. to defend undersourced articles, and it doesn't change the status of the sport-specific criteria at all? Newimpartial (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. NBASIC and GNG are, as you acknowledge, very similar, and the GNG is "general", so I'm not sure this is worth hair-splitting over. I don't think there was much wrong with your edit, except for your removal of GNG from the first sentence specifically. Your crime may have been that you edited the bolded sentence, which is seen by some to provide a justification to defend undersourced articles, making it impossible to be altered substantially without discussion. Avilich (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither of those two sentences has any policy force against higher-level guidelines, per CONLEVEL. And I was careful to preserve the force of the status quo ante in each of my edits while correcting the text to the relevant guideline. Do you actually think I missed anything, or was your (partial) objection "procedural" in nature? Newimpartial (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really procedural: initially somewhat, but I immediately reverted the procedural part. My only objection in the end was your replacement of GNG with N in the first sentence. N, of which GNG is but a section, is just a general overview of how notability works, whereas GNG itself outlines the actual standards. The 1st sentence outlined the relationship between NSPORT and GNG; by removing the latter you would twist the entire purpose of NSPORT as outlined in the FAQ. Avilich (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I edited the FAQ as well, which the other editor also reverted, because the relationship for athletes just isn't with the GNG. The fact is that the GNG doesn't apply to NSPORT in any way (except for events and horses); the relevant "multiple sources with significant coverage" standard for all the athletes is NBASIC. Period. It doesn't matter if NSPORTS contributors have even using a "particular" language for the last decade, that just isn't how Notability works for biographies. Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, friend, I barely even reverted your edit, the most I did was substitute NBASIC for GNG in a sentence that didn't specify whether it was talking about athletes or organizations, and thus required a "general" guideline. Is there something you want me to say or do? You may well be correct, but the wording is similar and the core idea essentially the same, so it doesn't make much of a difference to me or to the dozens of editors who used GNG as standard in AfDs and RfCs over the years. And you did not edit the FAQ at all nvm. Avilich (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, my bad, I hadn't seen your edits to the FAQ. I would've had no objection to those in particular. It's bagumba you want to talk to, he's the one who reverted you and needs convincing. Avilich (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that last point. I just wanted to be sure to reach out to "both sides" before starting anything on WT:NSPORT. Newimpartial (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Notability (sports). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DNTTR[edit]

Please, User:Avilich don't post templates on my talk page - WP:DNTTR. Nfitz (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Avilich (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you[edit]

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Thank you again for your kind comments and friendly gesture. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Avilich at Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation). Thank you. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite partial block from Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)[edit]

El_C 09:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't interacted directly much, but I know your contributions from WT:CGR, I think you are a valuable editor to have working on ancient Roman topics, and I usually agree with you on the merits of your arguments. That said, I think you are going about this dispute completely wrong, and I strongly urge you to tone down the rhetoric, and ideally withdraw some of the more inflammatory comments you made at the ANI thread. You have already been pblocked from editing the article; continuing with the aggressive conduct at ANI is not going to help your case. Please, take a break from the whole dispute: a disambiguation page which averages something like one view per day is not worth getting into a dispute like this about. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sitewide block[edit]

I converted the partial block to a one week sitewide one due to continued BATTLEGROUND and ASPERSIONS. I intend to reinstate the indef p-block once the sitewide block expires, but in case I forget to do so, please do not edit that page. El_C 13:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Your block prevents me from commenting further on the ANI thread. I need you to open an exception to that page. Avilich (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the block is your commentary at ANI, for which I had already warned you about. El_C 13:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich, can I offer some advice? Just ... let it go. The disambiguation page is averaging 62 page views a month. So someone is being dumb about it. It's not worth the fight to deal with folks who aren't subject matter experts but who will manage to look "better" than you because they aren't getting to the point of making personal attacks against you. In wikipolitics, once you begin to call the other side "names" ... you've lost the fight. Luckily, this isn't a fight that's worth anything ... the other side just looks stupid because they aren't listening to the sources or the experts. Let it go. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and El C? I get you're enforcing the NPA rules, but ... this escalation of the block just looks petty. And stupid, honestly. Perhaps someone should actually look into the facts of the matter, rather than thinking that because one side gets heated, they must be "wrong". I'm not up on the intricacies of disambiguation pages - but I'm pretty sure they aren't supposed to list redirects, which is what this one now does - mostly. But ... like I counseled Avilich - this is not worth the fight. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Or, as I suggested multiple times now, launch a dispute resolution request, like an WP:RFC to bring outside input to the content dispute. Feel free to advertise it with a neutral notice on relevant wikiprojects. El_C 13:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Stupid," got it. El_C 13:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Petty," too. GG. El_C 13:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: What 'aspersions' have I made since you warned me for the first time? I didn't even use the word 'lying' anymore, I merely provided diffs and links showing that one particular editor misrepresented facts and refused to discuss the issue. Of course, this all ceases to be 'aspersions' if evidence is provided, according to the very definition. And what if the original accusations do end up being true after all? But how would you know, you haven't looked at any of it. Avilich (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be wary of Ealdgyth's "advise" if I were you, Avilich. Even if, reflexively, their affirmation might sounds good. They are not being measured with their "counsel" to you, which I feel will serve you poorly in any future disputes. In answer to your question: many evidence-less aspersions (no diffs). Like: Impossible due to stonewalling and so on. How can that be so when the last comment on the article talk page was in April 2021. El_C 14:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The stonewalling is in that user talk page that was linked in the OP and that I linked to you twice afterwards in the discussion. Avilich (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you not link to it when you accused others of "stonewalling"? In any case, discussion of an article should primarily take place on that article's talk page, which, again, has not been edited since April 2021. I already explained to you multiple times about using a WP:DRR to get more outside input to the content dispute. Above, I also added you that you could advertise that discussion on relevant wikiprojects to hopefully bring more subject matter experts in. But you never responded, instead, you just kept going with the BATTLEGROUND. To what end? I'm trying real hard to help you act in your own best interests here, but unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working atm. El_C 14:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't think that this fight is worth the stress, honestly. It's not that important in the great scheme of things. Avilich is obviously not going about it correctly, and I get that you're (El C) trying to tell him how to do it, but he's not listening. So rather than have Avilich end up sitebanned because of something so petty, I'm suggesting that if he can't follow El C's advice, that he just drop the whole thing forever. I totally get that having someone argue that we have to keep a disambiguation page listing names that aren't even articles because someone read a work from the 1850s and think that it should be treated as on par with modern historical works ... that situation sucks. Big time. But ... if you (Avilich) can't do the slow measured dispute resolution process on wikipedia - then it's better to drop the subject and let it go ... rather than get sitebanned. THAT is what you're facing, Avilich, if you don't either deal with the imperfections of wikipedia's dispute resolution process or let it go. The stand you're making isn't working and won't work. THAT is my advice. Three choices, basically - El C's slow and imperfect dispute resolution process, letting the subject go, or keeping on fighting this way and getting sitebanned. I've watched WAY too many folks try to "make a stand" and get themselves sitebanned because they couldn't deal with the wikiprocess but couldn't let an issue go either. I'd rather not watch yet another good editor go that route, thus my advice. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Avilich, you haven't even tried a WP:DRR yet, so maybe don't subscribe to advise that dismisses its utility. At least until you given it a fair shake. El_C 14:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'content dispute' has been effectively resolved a year ago already. Our associate misrepresented (to avoid using that word you dislike) sources twice, refused to confront the issue head on when I brought it to his talk page, and continued editwarring anyway. To call this a genuine content dispute and having it require DRR, let alone ANI, is ridiculous. Rather, said associate and the filer of the ANI complaint should be told not to add fictitious entries without reason, not to misrepresent sources, and not to invent a 'consensus' where there is none. Avilich (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely something you can bring up in such a DRR discussion. And once formally closed, consensus will effectively be codified, at least for a long time. El_C 14:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, misrepresentation, which can happen in good faith, rather than lies, which are all bad faith. How can you even infer a "lie" rather than a good faith lapse in judgment? What, do you have some special insight into the minds of those whom you accuse of that? I think It'll benefit you long term to adopt an AGF approach. El_C 14:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article talk page, it seems I did originally AGF (if not in the most civil manner, admittedly), as it was only later that I noticed his claims did not match those of his source. Not that it stopped him from continuing the editwar and refusing to discuss and acknowledge his mistake. Now, he had no qualms about quoting a sentence of mine from the last year's ANI discussion and presenting it out of context. And there is of course the OP – an administrator, no less – claiming that adding content which he can't justify or verify is in line with the 'guidelines' and with 'consensus'. This is definitely more than a content dispute, and your framing of it as merely such only vindicates that sort of behavior. Avilich (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich, I don't see it that way, but maybe I'm wrong, who knows. You may file another unblock request, where you could try convincing the reviewing admin about all of that, about the utility of having you back at that ANI thread, whatever. Otherwise, I'll leave you to it. El_C 15:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Caeciliusinhorto and Ealdgyth: thanks, but I was taking a break from wikiedia anyway. Avilich (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the thing, Avilich. I'm happy to unblock you if you commit to resolving the content dispute the right way. I would have noted that earlier, but Ealdgyth use of the terms "stupid" and "petty" threw me for a loop. By all means, take a break and re-charge. I do that all the time. However, above, you had said: the block prevents me from commenting further on the ANI thread. I need you to open an exception to that page, but again, your comments at ANI were the immediate problem, in fact. El_C 15:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI thread is about me though, maybe it's reasonable that I should get to have a say in it? Sure, I'll refrain from further direct 'aspersions', thoug I'm not sure at this point what that even means. Avilich (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a person not involved in any way whatsoever: the most obvious is your repeated use of the word "lies". --JBL (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for no reason at all. Avilich (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to quickly recap this exchange: you expressed the view that you don't understand what about your behavior people find objectionable. I made an attempt to be helpful, treating your comment at face-value. Your response is, basically, "Yes I understand, but I feel that the behavior that people are describing as objectionable is totally ok." Well, sure, you can feel that way -- but you should consider how this sequence of events will appear to people not invested in the underlying dispute. -- JBL (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave evidence of why I think the accusation is justified (thus not exactly an 'aspersion'). Anyone is free to explain why they disagree, and any adminitrator can still decide to block me on a whim, but those things are beyond my control. Avilich (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, in fact, beyond your control whether you repeat a behavior after you have been told that people find it objectionable. This is true even if you do not accept the characterization as accurate. --JBL (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I went ahead and closed the ANI thread, with a note to redirect further discussion here so you have an opportunity to respond. It's perhaps best to remember the old adage "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all". -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: is it appropriate for an ANI thread to be closed by an involved party? Please do revert it, I already said what I had to say in my tak page and further discussion belongs there. Avilich (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I was doing you a favor because you were complaining about not being able to participate, but that's fine too. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: so, can you unblock me for now? I already said I'll moderate my language. If you still end up finding it unsatisfactory you can just hand me another sitewide block for 2 months or 6 months or whatever after the ANI business is finished. But the idea that I'm to be blocked from a discussion concerning me is incomprehensible (not just to me, as you've seen), and the excuse that you needed to stop me from disrupting the ANI with foul language isn't very convincing since I wasn't disrupting anything else, yet I'm still blocked globally. Avilich (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, I'm done here. You may appeal your block in the usual way. El_C 21:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I haven't looked into this in detail, but I think is that everyone overreacted. Avilich, you should be mindful of WP:CIV, NPA, and APERSIONS, and promise to apologize/refactor/avoid such language in the future. On the other hand, I've seen others use such language, including directed at me, and no blocks were given, even through at least some of the admins present here have seen them. IMHO you should have been handed a warning, not a week-lone site block, and I'd support your unblock, IF you'd promise to apologize/refactor/avoid such language. But I am not an admin, so it's not like agreeing with me is going to help directly - but if you'd like to appeal for an unblock, it may help to placate the reviewing admin. Or not, you never know, it's a lottery.). In either case, calm down, take a deep breath, and try to be a better person after this (I know it's hard when you are partially wronged too, but life is life...). In the big scheme of things, is one disambig worth all of this trouble? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going on a sort of break, so I'm just tying some loose ends, with people I already had a history with anyway. Avilich (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympic behemoth[edit]

It seems that anything less than a full AfD for Olympians, no matter how non-notable and undersourced the articles are, will be opposed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Johnpacklambert, as you see I'm rather incapacitated for the moment. Avilich (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		Scholarly Barnstar
		Many thanks for your excellent and well-researched contributions on Ancient Rome articles! Ifly6 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and brimstone[edit]

Was this at all necessary? These were specifically included because there was nothing on those and the lack of a guideline was leading to issues from people who didn't know better (the NARENA bit itself is rather recent, for example). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems kind of pointless to simply restate that GNG and NOTINHERITED must be met without giving any actual guideline-specific criteria, but if you think that this is needed to prevent bad AfD votes (despite it already existing as a general principle without the SNG) then I won't touch it again. Avilich (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of List of Roman emperors[edit]

Congratulations, Avilich! The list you nominated, List of Roman emperors, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived. This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying again[edit]

I have nominated Christianization of the Roman Empire again, this time in sociology, with hope and some trepidation. I have reworked it to contain everything that last reviewer and Richard and buidhe complained about it lacking, so I want to ask if you would give those additions the once over to be sure I haven't made any factual errors as far as Roman history goes. The last section "Endings" in particular needs a look. I am still dealing with my mother's estate business and likely will be for several months, but it is a good distraction for me to have something to do on WP. I hope someone picks up this review soon. Thank you for any help you are able to give.If you can't that's okay. I understand. I think it's okay, I just wanted my 'expert' to take a look and veryfy that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: My time (and interest) for this website is increasingly scarce, I'm afraid. I mostly log in now to do an occasional check or nominate for deletion some article I took note of in the past, and I won't do serious content additions anytime soon. I probably won't vanish for now, and I'll still try to help you out whenever I can; but I can't promise anything consistent or that I'll always find the time for it. Avilich (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you fo what you have already done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've been SCU'd[edit]

The joking title aside, I would appreciate any comments you might have as to User:Ifly6/Senatus consultum ultimum and User:Ifly6/Roman emergency decrees. Ifly6 (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ifly6: I have not forgotten the first time you pinged me to the SCU draft, but I don't have much time for serious contributions anymore, aside from AfDing a couple of articles I had on my mind for some time. Although I appreciate that you reached out for me, you probably know much more about those topics than I do, and chances are that, if you're asking for a review, your draft is ready to be published, since the existing articles are in much poorer shape.

  Some low-effort advice concerning the 'emergency decrees' draft specifically: each 'decree' may be notable enough for its own article, and grouping them all together seems a bit artificial. Avilich (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifications[edit]

Hello, Avilich,

When you move an article from main space to Draft space, please tag the original page for CSD speedy deletion R2. Tagging pages for deletion is made easy if you use Twinkle which is a popular editing tool for editors who patrol articles. It has several nice features and is very easy to use. It presents a list of possible deletion criteria for different namespaces that you select from and will also post notifications on the talk page of page creators. Thank you for your work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely draftify articles, will try to remember. Thanks Avilich (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification[edit]

Hi, Avilich. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Roman emperors – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for May 27. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Siege of Oricum. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SpinningSpark 22:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SpinningSpark 07:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

How do I add some redirects to Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation? Do you know? It is now a subpage and CRE is the parent, but it's really the better article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: while creating a page, type "#redirect [target page]" and create it, but I'm not sure that's what you have in mind. Avilich (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich No, I don't think so. Perhaps I am not naming it correctly. On the original CRE page, which is know an overview parent article, if you check 'page information', there are 9 redirects: "Apollo, Aeneas, Ancus Marcius, Diana (mythology), Geneva, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, Lupercalia, Lupercal, Middle Ages and more" it says. When you look at the same category for CRE diffusion, there are 0. Do I just go around to all the articles I can find connected to this topic and add "See also"s? Is that a redirect? Right now, it's an 'orphan' - I think... Any help you can offer will be appreciated! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: Ok, you're confusing things. Those pages you just listed (Apollo, etc), you actually found them in the "What links here" section, not "Page information". The "Number of redirects to this page" which you found on "Page information" (9 in CRE and 0 in CRED) is a different thing and of no interest to you. At the "What links here" section of CRED, you'll find all pages which link to CRED. Avilich (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I must be but I didn't know how. Those other pages (Apollo etc.) are listed at 'redirects' and not listed on 'what links here' so if they are one and not the other, why are they there? I don't know why. And what's with all the AlexNewArtBot Links? I don't understand what that is. I don't understand any of this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: You're looking at two different things here: 1, the "What links here" tab of CRE; and 2, the "What links here" tab of CRED. The former has Apollo etc., the latter has the AlexNewArtBot links (bot-managed pages linked to yours). Neither page you're looking at has anything to do with "redirects": the 9 redirects on CRE are a completely different set of links. Avilich (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'm lost. I do realize I am looking at two things - and comparing them - and wondering why they look different. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure what you're trying to accomplish. The article isn't an 'orphan' anymore, but if you want to increase traffic then just add links to it from other pages. Avilich (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That, I can follow. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Half Barnstar
	For your frankly inspiring work on List of Roman emperors with Tintero and Ichthyovenator, please accept this barnstar. The work that the three of you invested in making that beautiful article is highly motivating. Fritzmann (message me) 22:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Piraíno[edit]

Thankyou for your nomination of Antonio Piraíno for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frits de Voogt[edit]

Thankyou for nominating the article Frits de Voogt for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou[edit]

Thankyou for your contribution to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Saint Kitts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

It seems asking reasonable questions at ANI is treated as trying to evade rules. I actually took the trouble to read over what is not allowed by an interaction ban. Nothing in there seems to me to say one cannot nominate an article created by the other editor. I thought it was a reasonable thing to point out. Instead I have been cussed at and threatned with indefinete blocking just for asking about that issue. I undestand that mentioning the creator of an article would be a violation of the interaction ban, but one does not always mention the creator of an article, in fact one normally does not. I was also seeking some understanding if such would extend to large scale editing. I have little hope than I will get a good answer to that either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That whole discussion was unnecessary imo. It seems to have run its course though, fortunately without you being given a ban. My advice is to just pull back and refrain from commenting there any further, because it's unlikely anything will result from it now that the Arbcom discussion has been opened. Avilich (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]