User talk:CEpley

Welcome!
Hello, CEpley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Haploidavey (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits
Personally I welcome your additions of further reading, but many will be suspicious. You are adding rather too many books. Please don't combine references and further reading - keeping them apart is the accepted style. I am re-adding some of your edits that have been reverted. Equally, I'm dubious about the library widget, and it is not helped by your incorrect "yes" in the "by" field - books by "Roman temple" are not helpful. At Roman temple you repeated in FR 2 books that were already in "references", and removed the 1 book that was already in FR. Please also don't "make references more consistent" by changing British editions to the American one! Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note your edit to Latins should have been at Latins (Italic tribe), where I have moved the list. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what would be "suspicious" about adding sources to a Further Reading list. Most of these I have pulled from the Oxford Bibliography on the subject, and the ones which are not from that list are ones I found doing a catalog search at my university's library. My goal in these edits is to make these articles more useful to students in my field (Classical Studies/Archaeology). Thank you for pointing out that the library widget needed changed. In the case where I deleted a source, I deleted it because I couldn't find the book on Google Scholar or in my library. Furthermore, where I was making the citations more consistent I wasn't merely changing the edition from the British to the American - in some cases the lists did not utilize a consistent citation format, so I reformatted the citations. In some cases, information was missing from citations so I filled it in. CEpley (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Jones' Roman Economy
Hello! Do you have a copy of A. H. M. Jones' ''The Roman Economy. Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History''? If yes, could you make photos of pages 11-19 (1974 edition) about curiales/decuriones? Russian translator (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've requested a scan of the pages you requested from my university's library and just received the PDF. Let me know if the attachment doesn't work. Best, CEpley (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)



Thank you very much! Russian translator (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @Russian translator: Hey sorry I had to delete this file, since Commons has super strict copyright rules. Please upload elsewhere or send me an email if you need a copy. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Library widget
Hello. External links go under external links per MOS:SECTIONORDER. Cheers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You did it again here. Please follow the Manual of Style. If there is no 'External links' section, you can place the widget under the 'Further reading' section, not under the 'References' section. The widget features references not cited in an article; it is a bad idea to mix cited and uncited sources in the same section. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please make sure the templates you add make sense. This one contains links that lead to a page saying "No exact match for bible maccabees 1st." This is of no help to Wikipedia readers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)