User talk:Aldrasto

Per una valida collaborazione agli articoli riguardo la storia di Dalmazia e Istria ossia foibe massacres, Istrian exodus, history of Dalmatia, Dalmatian Italian, ecc. puoi contattare gl'italiani user:Il palazzo, user:Nickel Chromo, user:Attilios e user:Emanuele Mastrangelo attivi pure su it.wiki. Per l'articolo sul dittatore Josip Broz Tito puoi contattare l'italiano user:AndreaFox2 e l'australiano user:Sir Floyd attaccato dal solito DIREKTOR. Se puoi, lascia un messaggio in user talk:Jimbo Wales per un appello finalizzato a sbloccare user:Luigi 28, user:Barba Nane, user:Ducatista2, user:Miranovic, user:Trusciante, user:Pantaleone, user:Vastaso che son stati messi al bando su istigazione delle famigerate utenze slave che conosci: difatti agiscono una in sostegno dell'altra contro il regolamento che definisce questo comportamento meatpuppetry sanzionabile con la messa al bando. Considera inoltre che DIREKTOR ha ricevuto 3 blocchi per guerre editoriali e fu ristretto ossia limitato in una serie di articoli nei quali insiste con il suo POV: leggi qui Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia dunque se lo bloccano ancora una volta è prossimo alla messa al bando. Questi slavi negano la pulizia etnica contro i cittadini italiani ordinata dal dittatore Broz e di conseguenza vogliono fare qui pulizia istigando gli amministratori contro utenze italiane e non che si oppongono alla loro agenda politica, che è pure sanzionabile con messa al bando. Per avere un'idea guarda qui e successivi interventi, poi qui con successivi interventi; ancora leggi qui con l'ennesima guerra editoriale prima e dopo questa modifica; posso continuare con altri articoli nei quali DIREKTOR nega la pulizia etnica fatta dai croati nella guerra interslava dopo il 1991 e attacca utenze serbe: insomma è inaccettabile questo schifo! Leggi qui: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive587

welcome
Hi, Aldrasto. I am indeed interested in Roman subjects, and am perhaps too vocal about my views, which mainly have to do with content rather than technical matters. It's a pleasure, and not at all trouble, to welcome you as an editor, even though I may not be able to help with your particular questions. With formatting for articles, I learned hands-on, and made many silly mistakes at first. I still don't know how to do the preferred format for footnotes (or rather, I find it awkward and distracting), and use a rather basic form. If other editors want to standardize it, great. My suggestion would be to choose an article that strikes you as well done and that does the kind of things you want to do with notes or other formatting; open it in "edit this page" mode, and study the formatting tags. People learn in different ways, but I myself do better with direct observation and imitation rather than studying a style manual.

I suggest previewing your changes often, and editing entire pages rather than sections if you're dealing with footnotes, since footnotes don't show up when you're only editing a section. If you have specific questions, I've found that people are very good about responding to questions left at the Help Desk. You might also want to save your changes after you work a certain amount of time, 20 or 30 minutes. Less potentially to lose or restore.

As for software, I've been made aware that some people have trouble viewing certain things depending on their operating system or whatever, but since I use a Mac, everything seems pretty straightforward for me. So I'm of little help there.

In part because of the holidays and entertaining guests, I won't be editing for a while, only checking the pages on my watchlist. I'm also feeling a little discouraged about Wikipedia, because of the kind of numbing, non-intellectual arguments that seem to be required with increasing frequency to defend small points. I do have some things to finish up after the New Year, so please let me know if I can be of any help to you. Best wishes! Cynwolfe (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Flamen Quirinalis
I just carried out the move of your article Flamen Quirinalis. I noticed that with some further improvements, it could be featured at the Did you know section of the Main Page. For that, the article would need some more references--ideally, every single paragraph should be supported by a reference. Ucucha 12:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

lex regia
I'm not an expert on Roman law either, but I'd be glad to read your article. I'll comment on tht Lex Regia talk page, and/or make changes directly to the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Aldrasto. Have glanced over the article and now see that it's quite long. I may not have time to read it as promptly as I'd like. I'll make some comments on the talk page for now and try to give it a more careful look as soon as I can. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your comment on Ovid on my talk page was intriguing, and I haven't forgotten Lex Regia — I just can't seem to get to it right now. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Servius Tullius
Thanks for your interesting notes. Servius Tullius is a figure I hope to explore when I get a chance — such an interesting collocation of divine and mythic elements, and yet credited with many actions that seem historically plausible. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Roman religious terminology
A separate article seems an excellent suggestion. I don't think Religion in ancient Rome can offer more than an accurate overview - hence, I guess, your courteous frustration at that article talk-page. Roman religious terminology is a vast, complex and difficult topic and yes, we seem to lack a central reference article. Or rather, if one already exists, I've not found it. I'm sure you have your own ideas on format but I suggest a well sourced alphabetical list as the most useful. Some articles already provide definition and explanatory context - unfortunately, not many of them. I think you should go for it. And forgive me if I'm stating what's already obvious to you but if you develop the article as a user sub-page, and especially if you cite as you go, you'll reduce the risk of challenge or premature deletion by zealous watchers and robotniks. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message - really I should say messages, and I'm sorry I've not responded until now. I've heaped my own plate far too high: now and then (but particularly now) the spaghetti topples everywhere. I'll probably have a clear space over the next day or two, and I'll be happy to offer whatever I can. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't resist a look, and have tightened up the introduction. Hope these changes are OK with you. The "open project" business is probably redundant; all wiki articles are open. Haploidavey (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll make more contributions to this very useful new article as and when I link to its list. By the way, I'm sure you've noticed the gaping holes in the linked article templum; it says nothing at all in relation to the creation of a sacred augural space. Haploidavey (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a pleasure to be of help; the topic's essential and enormously interesting to me. My attempts at disambiguation are already falling foul of inappropriate redirects made in good faith by others. Both templum and fanum to Roman temple - don't mean to bang on about that, but its a deficit. Do you intend expansion of the augural templum within the Vocabulary article? Or in under the main article Augur? If so, we can redirect the redirects. Or whatever it is that we do in these cases... Haploidavey (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

a link you might find useful
Here's a site I just discovered that you may know already: The Roman Law Library. If not, thought it might be worth pointing out. (And sorry if I've seemed unresponsive to your always-welcome notes; I have literally five unfinished articles that interrelate that I can't seem to finish, and I'm trying to pursue them doggedly.) Cynwolfe (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Swearing in of Roman magistrates
Can you help me out here? I believe that under Augustus, the official year (and therefore the oaths of new magistrates) starts August 1 - but is that correct? And do you know if this a traditional date for inception of new magistrates throughout the Roman period? Were others used? Any light you can shed on this would help. Haploidavey (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for that, and the rest. Haploidavey (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

a little article relevant to leges regiae
Hi, Aldrasto. A day or two ago I posted a little article on Granius Flaccus that may have a couple of points of interest to you in regard to leges regiae. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your comments are valuable and welcome. I'll look back at the article to see whether it can be clarified. What it should say is not that Granius invented either the leges regiae or the ius Papirianum, but rather that he collected the leges regiae from researching the libri pontifices, and that the later Roman notion of a coherent body of jurisprudence associated with the name of Papirius the pontifex seems to have arisen from Granius's collection, because (I think) the term ius Papirianum is not found earlier. Sometimes I feel constrained not to make a statement that seems evident to me based on what both ancient and modern sources imply, because I can't actually cite a source that makes the point explicitly.


 * On the two theological points, I'm guessing (again, to argue this would be original research) that Granius's equation of the Lar with the Genius has to do with the question of whether the Lares were deified ancestors; thus the Genius of a man maybe in some sense becomes a Lar. I base this guess on two things I've worked on recently. First, the cult devotion shown to the still-living Marius Gratidianus at the compita alongside the Lares must've been directed at his Genius, which indicates that a connection between the Genius and the Lar seemed natural; second, in exploring the Novensiles (I have several sections to add to that one), I found discussion on the relation of Lares, Genii, and Manes.


 * On Minerva and the Moon, I guessing that there are two influences. One, in ancient theology, etymology plays a role that we're sometimes declined to dismiss because in terms of scientific linguistics, the etymology is wrong; however, the various theories of language as related to the divine order (like the Christian logos) for the ancient themselves held meaning. I'm guessing (though Arnobius does not elaborate on what Granius meant) that Granius had an etymological play in mind of mensis (the month as related to the moon, and thus celestial time) and mens ("mind" as it's usually associated with Minerva). I would further guess that Etruscan cosmology underlies this; we know that Granius's contemporary Nigidius Figulus was thoroughly immersed in the topic of Etruscan cosmology, and that the interesting, obscure Martianus Capella seems to have had access to Nigidius's works that are now lost. A diagram combining the heavenly sphere of Martianus Capella and that of the Piacenza liver has been attempted here. So I'm thinking Granius's identification may have been based on some astrological scheme.
 * Your note on the arbor felix is also welcome. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On the Lares: actually there are (as is almost always the case) multiple explanations among both ancients and moderns as to who the Lares actually were. For the ties of the Lares to the underworld, see for instance T.P. Wiseman, Remus, here et passim. So I'm not trying to say 'who the Lares really were,' but to represent the sources accurately. In the article on the novensiles, I'm in the process of presenting the range of views; who I think they were (if I even had an opinion) is beside the point.
 * Much of what we know about Varro's theological work comes from the patristic writers. Despite their purpose, they often deliver fairly straightforward bits of information, as can be confirmed from other sources, but of course must be used with caution.
 * I confess that I am not all interested in what Dumézil says about Roman religion. He is a great thinker, and as with Jung and Freud, I admire his intellectual achievement, his originality of thought, and his creation of a unique system — without buying into it. It is an object of study in its own right, a great creative body of work. It is precisely the integrity of his vision that distorts the messy specifics of Roman religion. It's magnificently reductive. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Got your note, and you do not at all owe me any form of apology. You've never said anything to me that I took in the slightest way as hostile or personal. The same cannot be said of several other Wikipedians. I regard your work as conducted utterly with good faith and in the spirit of furthering knowledge. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Vocabulary of ancient Roman religion
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Vocabulary of ancient Roman religion. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Templum. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Templum - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Aldrasto. Don't worry about the above. For the outcome, see the article talk page. However, there are concerns regarding the sources and development of the article. My own make rather a list, I'm afraid.


 * Sources are unclear. What are they? We can't rely on primary sources and personal interpretations of the same. We should use reliable, peer-reviewed, uncontentious, multiple sources. Currently, the article seems to rely heavily on primary sources and Dumezil. Other sources are predominantly Italian language. Where possible, sources should be published in English. There are many excellent English sources for this material; some quote Dumezil, but almost none of them concur with his idiosyncratic emphases and ingenious, speculative constructs.


 * It has few inline citations; some sections have none at all. The provision of inline citation is required for article verifiability. This is important. When an article deals with such highly specialised and relatively obscure material, it's essential.


 * Has this material been published in other wikipedias? If so, it must be credited. See article talk-page for this.


 * Material should not be duplicated across the board. In some cases, expansion within existing articles would be more useful. In others, not. That's a matter for editorial judgment and consensus.


 * Please use edit summaries to summarise the changes you make, and at least occasionally to justify them. An article in development on a dedicated user-page doesn't need such a meticulous approach; its problems can be addressed in a far more leisurely fashion. This one's very public.


 * Please use the article talk-page to develop the article, and please respond to the urgent concerns of other editors.


 * You might find all this easier if you follow one of wikipedia's good articles as a model for development.

I sincerely hope this helps. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your fast response - as courteous as ever, and that's much appreciated. Please don't let these concerns put you off; they all have solutions - some very easy (merely the development of useful editing habits), some slightly less so but far from insoluble. You'll find the following available online - at least in part (possibly even as pdf). The first is very recent, quite detailed and critical within the field:


 * Rüpke, Jörg (Editor), A Companion to Roman Religion, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007, ISBN 978-1-4051-2943-5


 * Beard, M., North, J., Price, S., Religions of Rome, Volume I, illustrated, reprint, Cambridge University Press, 1998. ISBN 0-521-31682-0
 * (I forgot to sign this post: therefore signing now, to separate the above from the following: Haploidavey (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC))


 * I know a little of the history of Rome, but only a relatively little, I am far from an expert. My intervention was first as an admin who saw this page listed for speedy deletion, and second as an experienced Wikipedia editor. I find several of the sections fascinating. I do think some work will be needed to get this into shape as a Wikipedia article, but no reason that can't be done. A couple of points:
 * Sources not in English are perfectly acceptable, although when there is an equivalent source in English it is preferred, as it will be useful to more of the readers. When a non-english source is used, it is useful if a relevant shoprt wuote can be provided in English traslation. The citation templates have provision for indicating the language of a source, providing translated quotes, and translated titles.
 * Language that addresses the reader, such as "We therefore conclude..." are in my view best avoided in Wikipedia articles.
 * Abbreviated references like "Liv. 1, 24, 7" will not be clear to all readers, remember that this article, as a general overview, is aimed at elst in part at readers with little knowledge of the subject.
 * Quotations in Latin should if possible, be translated as well as giving the original.
 * Currently some of the footnotes are references citations, and some are simple notes. These can be split into separate lists via the group parameter of the ref tags (see Help:Footnotes), but this may not be worth doing until the refernces are cleaned up and the article organized better.
 * I hope these comments are helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 March 2010

section subhead for clarity
Aldrasto, thanks for your comment; I think your latest on my talk might be in response to the post above: that's not mine, it's from DES (if you open the edit history on this page, you can link to his talk and respond there, if you wish).

Please note that all comments here are intended to help, not to put you off! I'm not sure what you meant about the line drawn under Templum. The article has been very usefully reformatted (by DES); I'll take a look at the history to see if I can figure what might have happened. By the way, the Rüpke volume (see above) is pan-European, pan-American, and represents the work of thirty or so historians; I'm sure some will be familiar to you. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at the history. The last five or so edit sessions are yours, and the strike-through appears in your very last version. I'm sorry, but I think you must have accidentally done this yourself! I've removed the strike-through code. Haploidavey (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've tightened copy in the first two paragraphs of Augurales libri. Hope what I've done is OK; I know the material only in outline, and have (I hope) not changed the substance of what you wrote. Any problems at all, please let me know. Haploidavey (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Augurales libri
Yes, I think an outline of this content (minus the more technical Latin!) would certainly be a helpful addition at Augur. Cheers, Haploidavey (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
DES (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking to Smith's et al
I'll see what I can do, and post the links here as and when I find them. The material is of course immensely useful and in many cases the scholarship's sound. I seldom use it directly & prefer to rely on modern scholarship, so if you're willing to add the email forwarding facility to your "user preferences", I'll try to send you something a bit more up-to-date. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Links:


 * Questia's proofread (I think) and searchable scanned version of W. Warde Fowler's "The Roman festivals of the period of the Republic": . A short, impressive introductory volume: use with caution. It's best checked against modern scholarship.


 * The excellent Mr Thayer's "Lacus Curtius" homepage; - it's a generous, searchable, multilingual resource. I tend to use this when citing ancient historians (though I have to say, I rely more on current interpretations of the same); most translations seem to be from Loeb editions.

PS: Thayer takes pains to point out that the link above is not his homepage. Oh well. It's still the most useful for our Romanish purposes. Haploidavey (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Novensiles
Hi, Aldrasto. Not exactly sure what you're asking me. I do have more sections to contribute on the Novensiles; I got sidetracked by some questions that came up in the course of familiarizing myself with the scholarly questions that pertain. One section, for instance, will present the "nine deities" question; another, the question of Sabine origin as alleged by Varro and at least one other ancient source. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposals regarding Vocabulary of ancient Roman religion
Hi! Would you be happy to create new articles for your longer entries at the above? I can help tighten them up without loss of substance, if you're OK with that; and Elen of the Roads has offered her help. Take a look at the talk-page; let us know what you think. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your OK on revisions. I'm sorry not to have responded before on templum - I only just read your earlier message regarding the duplicates. It must have come in at the same time as another, and of course the "message on talk-page" sign disappears as soon as read. Haploidavey (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback and corrections. I expect nothing less than your careful checking of the material and marking of errors. Believe me, others will follow! I'll have a think about the Cicero passage; it might serve more effectively as cross-reference in augur. Haploidavey (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, something I forgot to mention: it actually relates to my error regarding the Etruscan rituales. As I've said here and on the talk-page, I think every term offered in Latin should be translated into English. Could you oblige? Even if some of the terminology has to be move to footnotes (which seems likely as things stand), it'll help me work on the material, and will certainly help any average reader. Thanks. Haploidavey (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "here Cicero probably means, whoever does not appear, ie turn up when he is summoned to discharge his augural duties." Ah. I thought it meant (in effect) that any who failed to acknowledge the civil-religious basis of Roman law by attending trial was in contempt of the gods and the state. I'll just remove the section until we're more certain. Haploidavey (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC) But I see you've already fixed it.

Could you check your wikilinks
Hi Aldrasto, when you wikilink to other articles, could you check that it's going to the right place. In Vocabulary of ancient roman religion, WildBot keeps flagging up links to disambiguation pages, and sometimes I don't know where you intended to go - for instance in the last run, the bot flagged for Gaius, by which I presumed you meant Gaius the juror, and also for Pius. In that case, I had to take the link out (it was in a template) because I couldn't guess where you intended going - so if you could check and put that one back appropriately, that would be good. I know how easy it is to link to the dab page by mistake (I did the same with grove and had to correct to Sacred grove for the Grove of Diana in Fanum. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As requested I answer here on my talk page.

Gaius is the Roman jurist. As for Pius Wiki has got such an entry indeed, although very brief, ie being this a vocabulary of Roman religion Pius is intended as a (Latin) adjective used in Roman religion to connote somebody or something as respectful of divine law. Of course here I would like to give readers a more detailed presentation.Aldrasto (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pius is a disambiguation page. not an article. If you go down to the bottom of the page, it even says that it is a disambiguation page. You can't link to it in the way that you did.  There is no article on the subject of pius, but there is one on piety.  I couldn't tell if you meant to refer to piety, Antoninus Pius or Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius, but from the looks of it, what would be best is an entry in the Vocabulary article on Pius Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry about this inconvenience, however I wish to make it clear that I did not create any link for Pius. It is not my work and I do not know who did it. Aldrasto (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry. I thought it was one of your edits. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing matters
You seem discouraged. Your answers to queries show intelligent response to complex, specialised material; and you're certainly not short on self-criticism. I think everyone here appreciates and values your commitment. Your willingness to work in a foreign language (English) is admirable. Please don't give up on editing what you've already provided.

Regarding sources: frustrating but don't give up. The partial previews available through googlebooks can be an immensely useful resource. Finding them takes practice; a year into editing here, I'm still learning, and am very much the tyro. At some point, you'll almost certainly need to use a good library with modern, specialist resources - I don't know how you're placed for that, especially for works in English; but many works of international repute (the very useful Scheid, for example), are translated into several languages. I go to London twice a year with reading list and notebook, and spend five or so intensive days ploughing through works found either through google's partial previews, or at the recommendation of other wiki-editors.

Editing the material: the more you do it, the easier it gets. Honest. A suggestion, then: make a copy of, say, Leges Regiae and paste it into a user-page. Work on it for a day or so, then leave it entirely alone for a while - don't even read it. When you come back to it, don't add anything; just organise what you have and trim away any dead wood. Repeat the process for a month or so; at least that.

Just to get things in proportion: rewriting the Gladiator article took me (and others) six very intensive months of stumbling. As soon as I thought it was OK, I found it wasn't. It's still not "finished" because no wikipedia article ever is; but it's more-or-less good enough to serve its purpose. Some editors work much more quickly, and certainly far more efficiently than I do. But that's them. What you're dealing with is far more complex and harder to source than anything I've dared to tackle.

I hope I don't sound patronising, presumptuous or preachy. I know how it is to be utterly fascinated by the material and drown in the details. Eventually I'm learning to swim, as well as splutter. Haploidavey (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

arbor infelix
Thanks for adding that entry to the Glossary. It's a subject I've been interested in for some time. For some reason, however, it hadn't dawned on me that this would be connected to an ostentarium de arboribus. Duh for me and good for you. Hope you're well. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Aldrasto/ver sacrum
User:Aldrasto/ver sacrum, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aldrasto/ver sacrum and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Aldrasto/ver sacrum during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)