User talk:Cerme

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Brazilian Demography
Hello! I've enjoyed your contributions, especially in the Paulo Francis article. Congratulations.

But I'm writing here to ask for some help. I'm having some trouble in the White Brazilian article, where a guy called Opinoso seems to behave to be the owner of the place. Would it be too much abuse to ask you to have a look there and make some comments?]

Thank you! Ninguém (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bananaquit
I've replied to your question on my talk here. • Rabo³  • 14:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've edited the entry accordinglyCerme (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Veyne and the executions of Crispus and Fausta
Thank you for translating Veyne's original text. It does seem that Veyne strongly implied the connection, though (and perhaps this is something missing in translation) he seems not so incautious as to outright say it. I therefore believe that the sentence you added is legitimate. However: I think the original discussion of the events went on much too long, so your sentence might need to stay out anyways. As I recall (I haven't read the articles on this issue for about two years), Veyne's rationale of dynastic intrigue was developed more fully in standalone articles. They emphasized the intrigues of the female dynasts: Wishing to promote their own line, they made sure that the bastard-son wouldn't get anywhere near the throne. Unfortunately, Veyne doesn't seem (on the paragraphs you've quoted) to want to guess at the motives and mechanisms in detail ("these murders, whose reason we ignore").

Some months ago, another user added a prolonged narrative of the events, based entirely on Odahl's book. I didn't want to remove it&mdash;it provided an explanation, a sympathetic one perhaps, but one I hadn't had in my original passage&mdash;but I wanted to caution against accepting it. So I added some hostile reviews of Odahl to a footnote. Probably not the best thing to do. If we were going to add another paragraph, or cut some of the source criticism instead (I love that part, though! Don't destroy that part!), I would like to get a full overview of the competing psychological guesses in the scholarly literature. I feel that if we kept your sentence, we might downplay the most popular explanation on the market&mdash;that honest, doughty Constantine was outmanouevered by his wife and his mother, and convinced to murder his bastard son. Hmm.

There's some need for extended discussion of this material, but "Constantine I" is probably not roomy enough to hold it all. I've been wondering to myself how I'm going to break the full biography into more source-focused and detailed subarticles, but haven't been able to think of a good solution. Executions of Crispus and Fausta might be a good idea for a start, though.

Uh, anyways: CONCLUSIONS. You have convinced me. You should re-add that sentence, cited to both passages, although you might want to add a cite to a paper that discusses that theory in more detail.

P.S.: What is the French word you're translating as "bigwig"? You did that at Diocletian, too. You might want to find another word for that; "bigwig" is informal and uncommon in modern English.

P.P.S.: Cerme, I love your content additions (Maybe you look up the "important" French books on these subjects, so that you can add something completely new: G. Dagron's Naissance d'une capitale and Constantinople imaginaire, C. Mango's Le développement urbain de Constantinople (IVe–VIIe siècles), E. Patlagean's Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance (4e–7e siècles). Might be too late and too "socioeconomic" for your interests, though.), but you consistently make a small number of formatting mistakes. First: Sometimes you ignore the periods at the end of sentences that aren't yours. You should remove the period if you're going to extend the sentence, replacing it with a comma/colon/semicolon as the case requires. Second: You put the footnotes before punctuation, but Wikipedia's Manual of Style asks that they be placed after. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work, Cerme! If you need any papers from gated online journals (via JSTOR, Oxford, Chicago, Wiley, etc.), feel free to petition me. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The recent reply by Drmies has spurred me to check the literature again. The hypothesis that Crispus was executed to prevent an illegitimate son from contesting the dynastic succession was elaborated by Patrick Guthrie in his article "The Execution of Crispus", in Phoenix 20:4 (1966), 325–31. The other article I consulted is David Woods' "On the Death of the Empress Fausta", in Greece & Rome 45:1 (1998), 70–86, which mentions that Guthrie's thesis was "ably refuted" by H.A. Pohlsander's "Crispus: Brilliant Career and Tragic End", in Historia 33:1 (1984), 79–106. I have access to all three articles, and can e-mail them to you if you want. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Olavo de Carvalho
I've deprodded it, because of the following sources:, [ttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0atC9nVjn5YC&pg=PA275&dq=%22Olavo+de+Carvalho%22&hl=en&ei=hW4iTI3wPJCVOISvha4F&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22Olavo%20de%20Carvalho%22&f=false] and. I have only a very basic grasp of Portuguese, and I think the coverage is borderline, so please take this to WP:AFD if you wish. Thanks. Claritas § 20:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Landless Worker's Movement
Hi Cerme,

I've reversed your latest edit. I think you have a perfectly fair point about qualifying and disclosing potential bias on Veja's part. However, this is not a self-admitted bias (IE: They don't claim to hold that point of view) so without reliable sources ascribing that point of view, this very much runs afoul of NPOV. If you can provide a neutral source describing Veja in that manner, I see no problem with your edit.--Dali-Llama (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dilillama: A quick search on Google Scholar offered a paper presented, in English, by a Brazilian scholar at the 2010 LASA Congress. I shall work further on thisCerme (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Cerme. I read over your source. I really wish you could find a more direct quote ascribing this bias. Again, I'm not disputing your point but you're making a very strong assertion of bias about a major publication. And to be fair, you're "linking the dots"--no RS has said that the school issue is a clear example of bias. Let me know as soon as you have another source.--Dali-Llama (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Dilillama: A direct reference was found in an University of Oxford paper that even refers to the " MST madrassas" storyCerme (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Paulo Francis
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Paulo Francis. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RafaAzevedo msg 12:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

March 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Paulo Francis. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Editor_assistance/Requests, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''This is in response to a WP:WQA discussion about you. Those comments are absolutely unacceptable, and you will be blocked if you continue.'' Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

P Francis
No I'm sorry the reason that page doesn't make sense is because the English is appalling and unintelligible. Maybe staging wasn't the right correction but I only did that one because I can't make any sense of the rest of it whatsoever. Reichsfürst (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons help
Hi Cerme, Using images from commons is actually quite easy, and addictive once you get used to it. First, let's talk about Commons. In a separate window, open up commons here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page You can use the search bar in the upper right to find relevant images, which might take some creativity since they are often poorly tagged and labelled. You might need to look for something really broad, like a country name, and then search through five hundred images before you find something relevant, but that's a worst case scenario. If you find images that are copyright-free (typically due to age - the creator having died more than 70 years ago), you can load them onto commons and legitimately use them from there, if you follow the proper procedures. If you have any images like that, let me know and I can walk you through the process. So let's say you find an image you like. When you click on the thumbnail of it in the search results, it opens up a page just for that image. It shows the image name across the top and has various copyright information beneath it, sometimes with a description. NOTE: For this next part to make any sense, you need to be able to see the coding by reading this at the "edit" version of this page. Okay, so now you need to copy the name of the file in its entirety. For example: "File:Rio de Janeiro from Corcovado mountain.jpg" To insert the image into your article, you want to paste that filename at the part of the text where you want the image to appear. If you just put square brackets around it (i.e. ), as you see, the image will show up full-size, which will usually look bad since most of these image file sizes are huge. So you need to add some coding to the photo. Here's an example of a fairly complete string of coding for that image:



will show up as



There are several parts to this coding, separated by the upright bar |. The first is always the filename of the image. Next you want to indicate the image is a thumbnail ("thumb"), because otherwise a caption won't appear underneath the image. Then you can put the desired file size, just the numbers immediately followed by px. Next, include alt = followed by a description of what you're seeing in the image, because this part is provided for read-aloud software to read to blind computer users to know what kind of illustrations you're including in the piece. Finally, write out a caption to be included beneath the photo. That's all there is to it. It's really easy once you try it. Good luck and let me know if I can help you with anything else! Lemurbaby (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Paulo Francis PR
I can take a look at it, but am very busy right now (sorry it has taken so long to get back to you). It will be several days or even a week before I can review it. I will make a brief comment on the fair use image on the PR next. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Landless Workers' Movement
Hi Cerme, I've started reviewing your WP:GAN nomination, Landless Workers' Movement. My comments can be found at Talk:Landless Workers' Movement/GA1. I've no idea whether this nomination will pass or not, and that is quite unusual. Work will be needed to bring it up to standard and I've not sure whether that is going to be achievable during this review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Cerme, I read your comments at the end of /GA1. Just to clarify: the lead in this case is the first two paragraphs before the Contents box. If you are intending to do any more work on the article. I would suggest that the grammar is sorted out in the Earlier history of the land question in Brazil until the 1988 Constitution section first: some of the sentences are too long (this title is too long anyway). Secondly, decide what material needs to go in this section and what needs to go in the History section. Lastly, work on the Lead. The lead should introduce the topic of the article and summarise everything in the article (see WP:Lead). The lead needs the most work, but I think it is easier to write it after most of the article has been written - it is a summary after all. The article has good references, so that does not need much, if any, work. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leonel Brizola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Schlesinger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Landless Worker's Movement reviewed
Hi Cerme, I've gone ahead and reviewed the article you nominated at WP:GAN, you can find my comments at Talk:Landless Workers' Movement/GA2. I hope you find them helpful. Let me know if I can be of any help as you continue to improve the article. Thanks! Peace, delldot   &nabla;.  17:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leonel Brizola
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Leonel Brizola you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- 15:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks!Cerme (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leonel Brizola
The article Leonel Brizola you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Leonel Brizola for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- 22:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landless Workers' Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Burke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trajan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charax (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Landless Workers' Movement
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Landless Workers' Movement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Landless Workers' Movement
The article Landless Workers' Movement you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Landless Workers' Movement for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Araguaia guerrilla
Hi: I saw your message at User talk:ClueBot Commons. I don't know enough about the topic to judge the validity of the sources, but the editor who was blanking your expansion has been blocked. I suggest that if something like this happens again, you post at WP:AIV (intervention against vandalism) if it is one editor, as seems to have been the case here, or at WP:RFPP if it's several (page protection indicated). However, first you should attempt to talk to the person: do not immediately call it vandalism, be more precise in your edit summaries (in this case blanking/unexplained reversal of referenced expansion), and here you will find escalating templates to put on their user talk page: admins are reluctant to block someone who has not received a full set of warnings, but very often they will also be vandalising/blanking/making POV edits on other pages, so if everybody who reverts them adds a warning, they have fair notice that more than one editor objects, and if they don't stop, there is a clear trail for the admin to see. These procedures will help you make your case; and also help get someone to stop if they are simply confused or joking around. Hope this is helpful. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paulo Francis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paulo Francis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much!Cerme (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paulo Francis
The article Paulo Francis you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Paulo Francis for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Paulo Francis
 * added a link pointing to Usual suspects


 * Trajan
 * added a link pointing to Enlightenment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warhawk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Olavo de Carvalho
Hello Cerme, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Olavo de Carvalho, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trajan
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trajan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trajan
The article Trajan you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Trajan for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hadrian
Thanks for clarifying your use of citations. WCCasey (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Cerme (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Cerme, I've been changing nbsp; to and nbsp;– to  –  ("space, en-dash, space"), following Checkingfax's recommendations. I suppose I should also change – (simple unspaced en-dash) to one of these: –, – ("no space, en-dash, no space"), or...forgot the third one..., but I thought I'd just concentrate on the first ones for now. But I wanted to ask you about something. In the references, I saw some "p." (for "page") and some "pp." (for "pages"), and I was adding the no-break space between those and the actual page number, then I started seeing the word written out: "page". I started changing them to "p." (or "pp." if it is plural), but then I thought before I change all of them I'd better ask you whether you prefer to see the word written out in full ("page") or if the abbreviations are all right. Corinne (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. I just saw a red Cite error at Note 15. Corinne (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think "page" is better. I wil see the ride Cite error presently. Cerme (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * . I saw the error. Notes 14 & 15 refer to exactly the same reference. I believe this might be a case of a repeated reference, such as when two different pieces of information come from the same work and page, such as in an academic work would be dealt with by putting on the second following note: ibid., loc.cit - however, this is shunned by Wikipedia, and the definitive solution would be to reorganize references and footnotes according to the Harvard reference system, as I was explained lately by editor Zwerg Nase. Cerme (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Cerme, it doesn't matter to me which is used, the words "page" or "pages" written out in full or the abbreviations "p." or "pp.", but, to save the time and trouble later for re-doing them all, I thought I'd ask Checkingfax which is preferred in WP articles. See User talk:Checkingfax. He kindly explained a lot, and I gather that in plain references, the abbreviations are preferred. If you have further questions, perhaps you could ask Checkingfax since he knows more than I do. Corinne (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There has been quite a bit of discussion there, but please see this final comment from Checkingfax: . It appears that there will be inconsistency if we use "page"/"pages" in regular refs since those refs made with the "cite book" template will show up as "p."/"pp.", so I recommend (for the sake of consistency) that we use "p."/"pp." in regular refs. Corinne (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digest. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aqueduct. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hadrian
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hadrian you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lower Pannonia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hadrian
The article Hadrian you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hadrian for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your additions on Hadrian
You're doing great work at the Hadrian article, but sometimes your sentences can run on for quite a while. Take a look at my recent edits and you'll notice I removed one sentence of yours. I wasn't quite sure what message you were trying to get across. Can you re-add it as a standalone sentence?--Tataryn (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Trajan
Hello, Cerme -- I know you've been working hard to get Trajan into shape and address concerns I raised in my earlier comments. I've been watching your edits with interest. I feel a bit more work needs to be done, and I want to help you as much as I can.

1) Near the beginning of the section Trajan, you end a paragraph with this sentence:


 * This had to do mostly with curbing overenthusiastic spending on public works as a means of channeling ancient rivalries between neighboring cities.

There are a few things wrong with this sentence:

(a) You have "had to do mostly" twice, both here and in the next sentence:


 * Competition between Greek cities and their ruling oligarchies had to do mostly with marks of preeminence, specially for titles bestowed by the Roman emperor.

I'm not sure yet, but I think it works best with the first sentence, and something else could be used for the second sentence (I'm still thinking about it).

(b) It's not clear whether "as a means of channeling ancient rivalries between neighboring cities" is referring to the curbing of overenthusiastic spending or or the actual spending. It's not clear who was trying to channel ancient rivalries, and it's not entirely clear what "channeling" means here. I think I mentioned these same concerns before, and you tried to address them, but you haven't succeeded in clearing these things up yet. If you would answer the questions I've just raised here, I will help you express it clearly.

(c) In the second sentence I quoted above, you write "competition between Greek cities and their ruling oligarchies". Perhaps to someone who is familiar with Roman history, this is clear, but to an average reader, this is not clear. What kind of competition can there be between a [Greek] city and its "ruling oligarchy", unless that ruling oligarchy was Roman? If it was Roman, then (1) what kind of competition was this, and (2) why do you introduce a Greek-Roman competition immediately after a sentence that mentions "ancient rivalries between neighboring cities"? Weren't those Greek cities?

It's all a little too vague. Corinne (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay Corinne: the vagueness of both sentences is, to a certain measure, a consequence of their describing a very complicated historical situation. Let's say that the Romans were all too content with Greek grandees toying with city titles and (therefore) getting into a building frenzy; at the same time, thay wanted (badly) to have their taxes collected by the same Greek grandees and sent to Rome - the sooner the better. Therefore they did not want those "poor Greeks" to get into bankrupcy.

Intercity rivalry in the Greek East was mostly a competition betweeen the Greek oligarchies that ruled each city in behalf of Rome; at the same time, the common people also had a share in such rivalries (which envolved ruckus, brawls, hitting and killing between rival supporters at regional games, et coetera) and so one can say that it was not only rivalry between ruling cliques, but between entire cities as well.

That's what I meant to say in the two sentences. Naturally, I would be very pleased if you make both sentences easier for the general reader to understand. Thanks againCerme (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I see. Well, you explained it here pretty well. I think you only need to mention the things that are pertinent to the new policy of correctores being appointed by Rome to audit the accounts of the Greek cities, and, briefly, the kind (or kinds) of competition between which groups/cities. I think it would be very interesting to list the various kinds of competition in that part of the world at that time, kind of the way you explained it to me. It would illustrate the complexity of Greek-Roman relations. Also, could you please explain (using different words), what you mean by "Greek grandees toying with city titles"? Usually, the verb to toy is used with a person: X toyed with him. To toy with someone means to play with him in a way that is teasing the person, or deliberately misleading him, for the amusement of the person who is doing the toying. I'm not sure that's what you meant. Do you mean that members of the Greek oligarchy were competing for prestige in the eyes of Rome, in order to gain favor with Rome and thus additional advantages and/or money for their city? Corinne (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Corinne: Wow! That's an enormous commission you are offering me. The French historian Paul Veyne has written an entire book on this subject (civic spending in the Roman Empire), "Le Pain et Le Cirque", and it covers 800 small print pages... Plus another article by him, on Roman/Greek relations, that takes a further 100 pages. And this only from a single historian. The subject was already a burning issue during Roman times, and Dio of Prusa and Plutarch wrote entire tracts on it. But I will take a time and try to think about how to tackle the subject in a short way. Thank you very much for your interest - as well as for your splendid edits!Cerme (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First, you are welcome. Second, I don't think you have to write much more than you have already written. This section is about 3/4 to 4/5 of the way to being all right. You just have to use the right words (precise words) to say what you want to say, and organize the sentences well. Between what is already there (in this section) and what you wrote just above, you've kind of already said enough. I'm just trying to get you to clarify some words and phrases you've used. You did clarify some things, just above. Can you just respond to the other issues I raised? I will help you to put it into good sentences once I understand what was really going on. Corinne (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a note to tell you I left an additional comment at User talk:Corinne. I pinged you, but I just now remembered that perhaps the ping doesn't work with a red user name. Why don't you set up a user page so your user name will be blue? Corinne (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi and Cerme. Pings to registered users who do not have user pages will go through if the user name is used exactly as registered (with casing (including CamelCasing), punctuation, etc.). The exception being usernames that contain an equal sign.  Those need special treatment to go through (if a ping template is used).


 * However, it is my opinion that users without blue user names may be missing some pings because it is difficult for red user names to be proofed when pinging. A blue user name in a message preview is one of my cues that the user name is live and I typed it in correctly (or better yet I copy/pasted it correctly).


 * Cerme: As an aside, I notice when you respond to Corinne that you do not ping her at all. Lacking a ping she will not necessarily notice your update unless she subscribes to changes by email, or keeps a close watch on her Watchlist. For me, I have turned off email notification because keeping my email inbox cleaned up became overwhelming and it was tedious to follow the links one by one. Cheers!  21:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Cerme, adding to this, I don't know your reasons for not having a user page, but Checkingfax has told me that it would be enough to add one image or even just one word to your user page, and save, and then your user name would be blue – and you would get pings from other editors. If you have thought about making a user page but just don't know how, you could look at User page design center, and I would guess that Checkingfax would help you if you needed any kind of help. Corinne (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hadrian 2
Hello, Cerme -- As you've probably seen, I have begun a copy-edit of Hadrian. I have a few questions (I might have to add a few later after I go back and look at what I did yesterday).

1) In references, I started to change "page" to "p." and "pages" to "pp.", but then I thought I'd better ask you whether you prefer the word written out. Let me know what you prefer and I'll make them all consistent.

2) In the second-to-last paragraph in Hadrian, I came across the following sentence:


 * Both deifications of these prominent female members of Trajan's family might be seen as a means to buttress Hadrian's legitimacy.

The sentence is grammatically fine, but I thought maybe it should be made clear who was trying to buttress Hadrian's legitimacy. The way the sentence is worded now, it is not clear. One has to guess that it was Hadrian. It is possible that others had an interest in buttressing Hadrian's legitimacy. If these deifications were conscious moves by Hadrian to buttress his own legitimacy, wouldn't it make sense to word it something like this?


 * Both deifications of these prominent female members of Trajan's family might be seen as an effort by Hadrian to buttress his legitimacy.

If you like the sentence but don't like the word "effort", perhaps "a stratagem" or "a move" would work instead. Of course a lot depends upon what is in the source, so I'll let you decide.

3) In the third paragraph in Hadrian, the second sentence did not make sense. I made an intelligent guess and re-worded it to "[Hadrian] made recourse to...Turbo" (i.e., turned to Turbo for his help, used Turbo to accomplish something). If this is not correct, please let me know and the sentence can be changed. However, if I worded the sentence correctly, there is a bit of a problem with the cohesion of the rest of the paragraph. The subsequent sentences tell who Turbo was. Then we read that Turbo was "not competent to keep check on the Senate" (I think it should be "keep a check on the Senate", i.e., keep tabs on the Senate, keep the senators in line, but I'm going to ask someone about this. Rothorpe should it be "keep check on the Senate" or "keep a check on the Senate"?), then you explain why, and then you mention the secret police. Besides the fact that you made no connection between the statements about the secret police and what precedes it, you don't say anything about why Hadrian "made recourse to...Turbo" or whether Turbo succeeded in accomplishing anything, so the reader may wonder why you mentioned him. Corinne (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it's more common with the "a". Rothorpe (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rothorpe. Corinne (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

4) The first few sentences of Hadrian are:


 * In 123, he arrived in Mauretania where he personally led a campaign against local rebels.[128] However, this visit was to be short, as reports came through that the Eastern nation of Parthia was again preparing for war; as a result, Hadrian quickly headed eastwards. On his journey east it is known that at some point he visited Cyrene during which he personally made available funds for the training of the young men of well-bred families for the Roman military. This might well have been a stop off during his journey East.

I've highlighted two sentences. I'm wondering whether the second one (the last sentence here) is necessary, given that the first highlighted sentence says, "On his journey east it is known that at some point he visited Cyrene". Whereas this sounds fairly certain, the second sentence ("might well have been") casts some doubt. Do you want that doubt there? Corinne (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

5) Toward the end of the last paragraph in Hadrian is the following sentence:


 * The temple, whose completion had been contemplated by Trajan, received a colossal statue of Hadrian, and was built with dazzling white marble with gold tread.

I was stopped by the last phrase: "dazzling white marble with gold tread". I assumed that, rather than "tread", the word "thread" was meant, and I was about to change it when I wondered how gold thread (silk? cotton?) could be joined to marble. Can you read the source and see if you can find a bit more detail on this to explain the presence of "thread"? I mean, thread is not usually found by itself and not woven or sewn into something, so the phrase "marble and...thread" is odd. Here is some embroidery done in gold thread and a roll of thread:

– Corinne (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Corinne: I will be replying to you as soon as possible. Let me only say that, I my haste, I wrote the text "around" the existing versions and that amounted for repetitions, imprecisions and misspellings. I will have to take time to discuss the details. Please allow me a delay in offering you my take on what the final version should be. Ah-thanks a lot for your effort! Cerme (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * First, you're welcome. Second, I saw your comments on my talk page and your recent edits. I'm glad you changed "competent" to "qualified". (By the way, Rothorpe, do you agree with this word change? See my talk page.) However, in that same sentence you had earlier changed "keep check on the Senate" to "keep the Senate in check". In my comments above (and in which you'll see that I consulted Rothorpe) I had suggested, and Rothorpe agreed, that "keep check on" should be "keep a check on", merely adding the article "a" before "check". You re-arranged the sentence to "keep the Senate in check". Now, that is, of course, a perfectly good expression. I'm just wondering if it's the right expression. I think Hadrian, while he was away from Rome, had probably asked Turbo to kind of keep an eye on the Senate and the senators (and report back to him if he saw any problems). I think a directive to "keep the Senate in check" implies more control or oversight than either Hadrian meant or Turbo could accomplish. A directive to "keep a check on the Senate" is, I think, closer to "keep an eye on the Senate (and senators)". Rothorpe, am I making too much of a distinction here? Which phrase do you think is right for this place: "keep a check on the Senate" or "keep the Senate in check"? Corinne (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that your version is the best in the way of conveying the exact historical context. I will wait for Rothorpe's agreement before we make the required edit. Thanks a lot.Cerme (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Cerme! I agree that 'keep a check on', meaning keep an eye on, is what is intended. I agree also with 'qualified'. Rothorpe (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cerme,, and. There is an unbalanced bracket in reference [1] shown below:

Where should the closing paren go? PING me back. Cheers! 22:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 *  I would guess that it should go after "contra Vita Hadr", the last three words of what appears to be a sub-title explaining the contents of the first phrase. Often this type of sub-title follows an en-dash, but here it seems to be in parentheses. If this text is a book, it should be italicized starting from "Itálica"; perhaps it is in quotation marks because it is an article or monograph. I think Cerme should look at the source to be sure. Corinne (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . I concur on the closing paren on the third look so that is what I just did. Cheers!  02:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and. The reference is confused: What I think is that the Spanish title of the article quoted is "Itálica: patria y [...] de Adriano". What follows between brackets, however, is a subtitle (31 textos historicos y argumentos [...]) i.e., 31 historical texts and arguments against the Life of Hadrian in Historia Augusta, 1.3, which states that Hadrian was born in Rome (textual quote: "Hadrian was born in Rome on the ninth day before the Kalends of February in the seventh consulship of Vespasian and the fifth of Titus").

The reference therefore is supposed to offer evidence to the alternate thesis that Hadrian's birth place was Italica in Spain. The following link to an academic Italian site, however, is dead. I believe the full reference, with title, is :

Alicia M. Canto, "Itálica, patria y ciudad natal de Adriano (31 textos históricos y argumentos contra Vita Hadr 1,3). (Eng. trans.: Alicia M. Canto, "Italica, Hadrian's patria and birth place (with 31 historical sources and arguments contrary to Vita Hadr, 1,3)". Patria is used in the Latin sense of more than a simple hometown, meaning that Hadrian was originally a citizen of Italica. Being an article originally in Spanish, I believe that Ms. Canto wants to support the thesis that Hadrian was somewhat of a Spaniard, something that goes well with modern patriotic pride about the important role of Southern Hispania in the politico-economic life of the Second Century Roman Empire.

The phrase "His father died in AD 86 when Hadrian was at the age of 10" is a loose quote from  the Historia Augusta text, 1,4, that has got into the reference, I think, by mistake.

That's my opinion, but we should perhaps find a link to the original article.Cerme (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanations and the additional information, Cerme. I just want to clarify that the only question Checkingfax had was where to put the close parenthesis – ) – . I had suggested after "contra Vita Hadr", Checkingfax concurred, and, judging from your placement of the close parenthesis, you seem to agree also. I don't know if the "1,3" after "Hadr" is needed or not. Corinne (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think 1,3 should be included because they are the Chapter and subchapter of the Vita Hadrianii in Historia Augusta challenged by Ms. Canto article, which supports the thesis, contrary to Historia Augusta, that Hadrian was born a citizen of Italica, not RomeCerme (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Trajan 2
Hello, Cerme -- I hadn't looked at Trajan for a while, so I just took some time to look at your latest edits. I saw one sentence that needed fixing, and I decided to read the whole Alimenta section. I saw a few things I'd like to discuss with you, including one incomplete sentence. I'm going to copy the entire section here, and number the sentences for ease of discussion; I will also remove the reference numbers.

(I will number my points, but note that these numbers do not necessarily correspond to the sentence numbers.)

1) In the first paragraph, you will see that the word "fund", or "funds", and fundi, appear four times. In sentences (2) and (3), you will see that the word "funds" appears twice. I'm wondering if you could remove one of those two, to reduce the total to three instances. Perhaps, instead of "It provided general funds", you could substitute "It provided general support", which would tie pretty well with the previous sentence. Besides, "It provided general funds" is a bit vague.

2) Sentence (7) starts, "Nevertheless, as an aim this was in itself anachronistic". The previous sentence mentioned several things, so the reader has to figure out exactly what is meant by "this". It would be clearer if you added a noun after "this" to make it really clear to what this sentence refers. You might consider re-wording the sentence to: "Nevertheless, this aim was actually anachronistic".

The second half of sentence (7) is:


 * in that it saw the Roman Empire as a hegemony centering on a purely Italian manpower base.

I see two separate problems with this:

(a) the "it" near the beginning apparently refers to the anachronistic "aim" in the first part of the sentence. However, if you think about it, an aim cannot see anything. You could change it to something like, "in that it was based on a view of the Roman Empire as..."

(b) Checkingfax recently provided statistics showing that 25% of WP's readers are children aged 10 to 18 (Did I recall the numbers right, Checkingfax?). I think this sentence, particularly the second half, is overly academic. I wouldn't use "hegemony" at all, but if you have to, I would link it to Wiktionary with hegemony, and "centering on a purely Italian manpower base" will go right over many readers' heads. Perhaps you could re-word the sentence so it will make sense to the average reader.

3) Likewise with the last part of sentence (8).

4) In sentence (10), it might not be obvious to many readers how Trajan's stricture would have helped with the economic recovery of Italy. Perhaps you could add a few words to make the connection clear. How would requiring senators to have at least a third of their landed estates within Italy help the economy? By providing a living to poor citizens? By stimulating the markets with the sale of crops and the purchase of supplies and equipment for the senators' farms and homes? Something like that.

5) Sentence (12) is an incomplete sentence.

6) Sentences (11) and (13) both start with "Besides, the fact that". Stylistically, it would be best not to repeat the same phrase twice in such close proximity. However, there is also another problem with the entire phrase. Usually, the phrase is used in a sentence like this: "Besides the fact that X, Y....," so when I read this the first time, thinking it was really this construction, I was thrown off and had to re-read the sentence. You can avoid this by changing, "Besides" to "In addition", or "Also,".

7) In sentence (13) you have "the extent", and in sentence (15) you have "to a certain extent". It would be good to change one of these. You might even simply remove "the extent" in sentence (13); I think it makes sense with no phrase there: "restricted the scheme even further".

8) Sentence (16) starts, "On the other hand, a senator such as Pliny". When you use a construction like this, what follows really needs to be either hypothetical or a general example, possibly with "could" or "might": "On the other hand, a senator such as Pliny could...". However, what you have followed it with is real information about what Pliny really did, so it's not hypothetical and it's not really an example, or at least you haven't presented it as an example. You could word the first sentence as an example, as I have just shown, with "could", and then follow it with a statement about what Pliny actually did. The way you have it now, you go right into real information about Pliny in the first sentence. If you want to leave it that way, I suggest leaving out "A senator such as" before "Pliny" (and of course do not use "could"). Then it will all be factual information about Pliny.

9) In sentence (15), you use the word "fisc". I had never even seen or heard this word. Are you sure it is a word? If so, I suggest either linking it to the Wiktionary definition or using a different word. – Corinne (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

10) In sentence (16), you describe Pliny's own personal "scheme". However, it is not real clear why you include this here. How is it related to Trajan's alimenta scheme? Pliny would not have been subject to Trajan's "stricture" and the forced loans, would he? Can you try to add a few words to explain the reason why you included this information about Pliny? If he was not subject to Trajan's stricture and the loans, you could say that: "Though not subject to Trajan's stricture or the forced loans, Pliny..." or just "Though not subject to the forced loans, Pliny..." Also, it is not completely clear whether Pliny's "scheme" was mainly designed to help support his own estates, and any charitable outcome was merely incidental, or what. Are you presenting this as an example of an alternate form of charitable funding for the poor citizens of Italy? All this ought to be made clear, not necessarily with the addition of a lot more words, just the right few words. – Corinne (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Cerme and . Corinne, your recollection is very close. I believe it was 25%, but it was 10 to 17 year old, and another 25% were 35 to 85 year old, and those numbers combine readers with editors (the survey referred to them as cohorts). Cheers!  06:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Cerme, please see Trajan, especially Checkingfax's comment toward the end regarding the placement of refs. Do you see the slight indentation at the left margin in the next line following an en-dash that appears at the end of a line? – Corinne (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Corinne, I'm currently working on the alimenta section and will correct/expand it according to all your suggestions. Now, as to the relationship between Trajan and Pliny: charitable schemes such as Pliny's (setting up a charitable foundation that would provide for a kind of perpetual dole to a particular community, a yearly banquet at the anniversary of the original donor's death, games, and so on) were very common across the whole of the Roman Empire, and there was no concrtete relationship between Pliny's particular charity and the alimenta. But then, Pliny seems to have acted as a kind of spin doctor to Trajan - not as an intimate friend; that seems to have been Licinius Sura's position - and his personal scheme seems to replicate, somehow, the spirit of the alimenta. I wil use Finley's and Veyne's works on developing this particular point.

As to the use of the word "fisc" - the fisc, here, is the imperial treasury (Latin fiscus) as opposed to the "public", Senate-managed old Republican treasure, the aerarium. I have found fisc in the Merriam-Webster, as "State treasury", but it's undoubtely an obsolete word in English. As my mother language is a Romance one, I typed "fisc" unwittlingly. Sorry for that. Perhaps using "Imperial treasury" instead would do.Cerme (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Cerme, I am sorry that I have been so inactive over the last couple of days concerning your review. It appears to me that you are through with the short foot notes? Concerning the whole Bennett matter, I will need to take another look at both the article and the books mentioned on the talk page to determine what this means for the review. Could you give me a quick overview over what you think about it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @talkI have gone through the short notes for the single author works. There remains the problem of how to deal, not only with the works with double authorship (Christol & Nony usw.) but with the collective works published under an editor, e.g. the work by González, ed., which is a collection of papers on Trajan presented during a congress in Seville and then published by the Italian publisher L'Erma de Bretschneider. In this case, we have the problem of telling between the author of the individual paper and the managing editor.Any suggestions?Cerme (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paulo Francis
The article Paulo Francis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Paulo Francis for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I will revise the article, in due time, but, given the extensive nature of the changes suggested, it may be ready well past the deadline for GAN. Thanks, anyway Cerme (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hadrian 3
Hello, Cerme -- I saw your recent edits to Hadrian, and I hope you don't mind that I made a few copy-edits. I'd like to ask you a few things about these sentences, which appear at the end of the third paragraph in Hadrian:


 * Therefore, Hadrian had received the signal honour of assuming the tribunate of the plebs a year earlier than was customary, and departed early from both Dacian campaigns – a sign that Trajan wanted to have him out of his way. Nevertheless, an anecdote preserved by the Historia Augusta biography states that, at about the same time, Hadrian received from Trajan the gift of a diamond ring that Trajan himself had received from Nerva, "and by this gift he [Hadrian] was encouraged in his hopes of succeeding to the throne".

In the first sentence, I removed "If", because the sentence was ungrammatical; the conditional sentence was incomplete, and "if" did not seem necessary. (Feel free to re-word it if you think a conditional sentence is needed there.) However, it seems as if the phrase the follows the en-dash – "a sign that Trajan wanted to have him out of his way" – should apply only to "departed early from both Dacian campaigns", not to the first clause. If this is true, there really should be a contrast between the two clauses of that first sentence (the first event was a good thing for Hadrian, and the second event was not), and right now there is no contrast. Perhaps the sentence should be ended after "customary" and a new sentence begun. ("However, he also departed early..."). If not, then I really don't understand this sentence.

Then, in the next sentence that begins "Nevertheless", we go back to a positive turn of events. In this sentence is the phrase "at about the same time". However, the first sentence seems to refer to two different times, so the phrase "at about the same time" is ambiguous. What time? If the first sentence is divided into two sentences as I suggested, it might be less ambiguous since the time phrase would refer to the second sentence and not the first.

Also, just in reading the next few paragraphs, I noticed that "at this time" is used quite often. Perhaps you should do a search with the "Find" tool for "at this time" and "at the same time", and see if the phrases are overused throughout the article. You may find a few that could be removed or changed to a different indication of time. – Corinne (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Corinne, I just rewrote the entire paragraph in order to convey what I found on the sources. In fact, I think that we had here a perverse situation in which Trajan allowed his protegé to hope for the succession but never allowed such hopes to become actual fact - something described keenly by the Historia Augusta writer.Cerme (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your thanks for my small edit at Hadrian. Kudos for taking on the topic, and with such care and committment! I'll look in from time to time. Haploidavey (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hadrian
Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Hadrian has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hadrian
In case you haven't seen already, I have begun to review your article Hadrian for Good Article status at Talk:Hadrian/GA3.

Sorry about the late notification here: I expected the bot to do it, but it looks like it hasn't.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'm making corrections to the article according to your proposed changes, on a one-to-one basis. That will, naturally enough, take some time.Cerme (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a huge article, and I'm happy to wait around for a while so long as you are working on improving it. If you ping me, message me on my talkpage, or comment on the GA review (which is on my watchlist) when you are done, I'll have another look over it.  I think the major concern with the article is making sure the prose is nice and clear, especially considering how long the article is: it seems like there are no real concerns with sourcing or neutrality. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hadrian
Hello Cerme! Thank you so much for your note at my talk page. I've just read through the edit history at the Hadrian article, and seem to have intended exactly the same removal, some weeks back -- but promptly forgot to carry it out. I'd also like to express my appreciation of the gargantuan amount of careful work you've done in providing well-sourced content; almost all the "heavy lifting" has, so far as I can tell, already been done (and by you). I've not abandoned editing there; I'm just rather stuck regarding the optimal organisation of content. In such circumstances, I usually let things brew for a week or two; it sometimes helps me see a way forward. You know the material far better than I, and any further suggestions from you would be most welcome. Best wishes, Haploidavey (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hadrian
The article Hadrian you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hadrian for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Thanks! Cerme (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I will review the article on Hadrian. Could you review the article on Marcus Aurelius? Векочел (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trajan
The article Trajan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trajan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ??????? -- ??????? (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trajan
The article Trajan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Trajan for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)