User talk:Ichthyovenator/Archive 3

Your GA nomination of Ashur-uballit II
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ashur-uballit II 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 Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sargon II
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sargon II 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Statue of Marduk
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Statue of Marduk 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Carolingian empire
The wording you objected to—"revive the Roman Empire in the west"—was carefully chosen. In fact, that exact wording is found in Bernard Bachrach, Early Carolingian Warfare: Prelude to Empire. Just as the old division of the empire under the Tetrarchy did not mean that it wasn't a single empire, the revival of the imperial title in the West did not mean a denial of the unity or universality of the Roman empire. I don't think the idea of a transfer or translation of empire is any more correct or contemporary than revival or renewal. In any case, I have left it as is because "revive the Roman Empire in the west" could be interpreted to mean that Charlemagne was a successor of Romulus Augustulus in some special sense, which he wasn't. Srnec (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that the exact wording was actually from Bachrach's work and I agree that "revive the Roman Empire in the west" is not explicitly wrong - Charlemagne's coronation did proclaim a new Roman Empire in Western Europe. Before I edited the article, it linked "Roman Empire in the west" to Western Roman Empire which I feel was the big issue as it seemed to me to imply that Charlemagne was proclaimed as Romulus Augustulus's successor (which as you say, he wasn't). The wording I added, "an effort to transfer the Roman Empire from east to west" might be a bit clunky and probably needs a bit more context that shouldn't just be there in the form of links (how do you "transfer" an empire? there was a Roman Empire in the east in 800?), so the older wording might be better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire
The article Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ashur-etil-ilani
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ashur-etil-ilani 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sinsharishkun
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sinsharishkun 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ashur-etil-ilani
The article Ashur-etil-ilani you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ashur-etil-ilani 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sinsharishkun
The article Sinsharishkun you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sinsharishkun 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Demetrios Palaiologos
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Demetrios Palaiologos 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Palaiologos
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Palaiologos 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Demetrios Palaiologos
The article Demetrios Palaiologos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Demetrios Palaiologos 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sin-shumu-lishir
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sin-shumu-lishir 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Serua-eterat
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Serua-eterat 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Palaiologos
The article Thomas Palaiologos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas Palaiologos 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Serua-eterat
The article Serua-eterat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Serua-eterat 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sin-shumu-lishir
The article Sin-shumu-lishir you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sin-shumu-lishir 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: your nomination of Ashur-uballit II
I finally got around to writing up my review. Hope my comments help. -- llywrch (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sargon II
The article Sargon II you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sargon II 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge
Hi, feel free to add your articles to this! Keep up the great work!† Encyclopædius  21:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added five articles I created today! Will do :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Amazing work! The British one is independent from the European one though at The 10,000 Challenge. The one of them can be listed at both but I'll move the others over now. Thanks!† Encyclopædius  21:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Statue of Marduk
The article Statue of Marduk 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:Statue of Marduk for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sargonid dynasty
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sargonid dynasty 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ashur-uballit II
The article Ashur-uballit II 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:Ashur-uballit II for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, this is a pass! -- llywrch (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ashur-uballit II
The article Ashur-uballit II you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ashur-uballit II 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 Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sennacherib
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sennacherib 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Statue of Marduk
The article Statue of Marduk you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Statue of Marduk 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sargonid dynasty
The article Sargonid dynasty you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sargonid dynasty 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ferdinand Paleologus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ferdinand Paleologus 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week
Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Articles may be submitted for this as well as the regional Challenge you usually contribute to at the same time. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius  19:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Your input
Hey, Firstly, congrats for your amazing job at making so many good articles. I would appreciate your insight about the end date of the Assyrian Empire. As far as i know, the Asyrians were defeated by the combined armies of the Babylonians and the Medes at the battle of Nineveh, in 612 BC, then, a certain Ashur-Uballit II ascended the throne at Harran, but was defeated by the same Medo-Babylonian coalition in 610 BC and thus, escaped with the remnants of his army to the Egyptian city of Karkemish. At this point, i.e. after the fall of Harran, Assyria was no longer a state entity and as such, already destroyed, the final attempt to reconquer Harran (in 609 BC) was in fact made by a stateless king with the help of the Egyptian troops. That being said, shouldn't we put the end date of the Assyrian Empire at 610 BC instead of 609 BC ? Thanks in advance for your help. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you! :)
 * I would actually argue that the Assyrian Empire fell in 612 BC with the Fall of Nineveh, its capital, and the death of King Sinsharishkun. Sinsharishkun's successor (and son???) Ashur-uballit II wasn't recognized as king by the Assyrians themselves, but rather as crown prince, since he couldn't be crowned at Assur (which had been razed in 614 BC). The Babylonians referred to Ashur-uballit II as the "Assyrian king" and we do today too since the Babylonian records are pretty much all we have identifying him. Most modern works (which is what we have to follow) place the fall of Assyria in the beginning of 609 BC as far as I'm aware, when Harran (which had been besieged for a long time) finally surrendered. I don't think they're dating to Ashur-uballit's failed recapture of the city (later in the same year), but I could be wrong. Though I think 612 BC is the "more correct" date, we thus have to use 609 BC on Wikipedia.
 * You could also argue that "Assyria" as an idea is intimately tied to the Assyrian king since Assyria is Ashur's land and the Assyrian king is Ashur's vicar on Earth and that Assyria thus doesn't end until the last Assyrian king dies, which would mean either with Sinsharishkun in 612 BC or Ashur-uballit II in 608–606 BC. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your insight, i asked for their input to too and they said the same thing. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  22:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Copy Edit - Andreas Palaiologos Comment
Thank you very much for taking the time to go through my article! I will keep an eye on it :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sennacherib
The article Sennacherib you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sennacherib 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ferdinand Paleologus
The article Ferdinand Paleologus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ferdinand Paleologus 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Copy Edit Complete

 * Please visit the talk page on the article for feedback. GalendaliaChat Me Up 11:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional comments on Andreas Palaiologos
Hi Ichthyovenator. I completed a review of this article and had some additional questions and observations for you:
 * 1) Do you have an WP:ENGVAR preference?
 * I'm not a native English speaker so no, I am aware that inconsistency problems crop up in some of my articles and though I try to be consistent, I really can't properly distinguish British and American English. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Note that the article varied between "Turk" and "Ottoman". I went with "Ottoman" for consistency and as the more precise term, but I don't have a strong preference.
 * Yeah, both mean the same thing in the context of the article, but just using Ottoman is fine. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) In the section "Negative portrayal by historians", there is a reference in the second paragraph to "Gherardi da Volterra", while the third paragraph has "da Volterra and Gherardi". Is this one person or two?
 * Oops, Gherardi da Volterra is one person, the "and Gherardi" was meant to be "and Spandugnino". Fixed this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Regards, Tdslk (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scanisaurus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scanisaurus 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scanisaurus
The article Scanisaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Scanisaurus 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Nostradamus and COVID-19
I noticed a suspicious set of information on the Nostradamus page about the current virus outbreak. I saw that you had previously removed what I guessed to be the same thing, and wanted to know what should be done, as it was re-added. Thanks, hopefully I did not ask this question in the wrong place.Mulstev (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it should definitely be removed. Not only is it a quite extreme claim but there are no sources used to support it - you'll notice that both the sources used for the image caption that talks about this are from 2003 so can't be used to substantiate a claim that Nostradamus predicted something that happened in 2019/2020. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homo ergaster
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Homo ergaster 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 Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homo ergaster
The article Homo ergaster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Homo ergaster 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 Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Homo ergaster nominated at DYK
Hi. I've nominated the article above at DYK. You can see it at Template:Did you know nominations/Homo ergaster.

know you're an experienced editor and I don't mean to step on any toes, but it's been hard to fill sets lately because more than half of the approved hooks are US-related, so I'm trying to get a more diverse pool of content in DYK. I encourage you to nominate any further GAs you have to DYK, especially any work related to under-represented regions (i.e. not the US or Western Europe). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not stepping on any toes :) I don't have anything else that fits the DYK criteria right now (the seven days thing) but I will keep this in mind and nominate the next article I work on. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Godscall Paleologue
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Godscall Paleologue 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Godscall Paleologue
The article Godscall Paleologue 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:Godscall Paleologue for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Godscall Paleologue
The article Godscall Paleologue you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Godscall Paleologue 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Homo ergaster
Vanamonde (Talk) 00:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manuel Palaiologos
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Manuel Palaiologos 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 HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manuel Palaiologos
The article Manuel Palaiologos 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:Manuel Palaiologos for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manuel Palaiologos
The article Manuel Palaiologos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Manuel Palaiologos for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

animosity
Hi. Apologies if I sounded a bit hostile or vehement in the Roman emperors' thing back there. I had added a small comment immediately after your first input to try to put away the notion of bad feelings. Cheers. Avis11 (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no worries! I probably shouldn't have reverted your change to the infoboxes everywhere without discussion first; I know what it's like to have large amounts of work just removed, so sorry about that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

FAC Nomination
Nice work on Andreas Palaiologos. I know you're in the thick of it right now, but if you have time and the inclination and would like some payback for my nitpicking, I'd welcome a review of Hyborian War, my article's nomination at the FAC page as well. Just looking for a fair review, no free passes. Of course, it's a bit out of your normal area, so no problem if you prefer not. Either way, best wishes on your article and thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia! Airborne84 (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your review! Your FAC is something I know really nothing about, so I'm not sure how helpful my input will be, but I will definitely have a look! Thank you! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft emperors
I added some of the Constantinians to your long-term Draft Roman emperors list, and changed a couple of their dates to meet the PLRE. Apparently the brothers Constantine did not become augusti until September 337, even though Constantine died in May; they were probably the first anyone could remember that had to wait to be proclaimed by the senate, rather than by an existing emperor. I'd be interested to know what you think. GPinkerton (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks! Sorry for progress being so extremely slow on the list; it's a big project and I've been jumbled up in other things. You're more than welcome to help out (but add in citations for anything you add!), I've been planning on getting back to work on it soon. One thing; I noticed your addition of Licinius to Constantine's first entry - the idea was to just use co-rulers in their part of the empire (i.e. just in the west for Constantine there); yes, there was an imperial college and they were co-rulers of the Roman Empire, but otherwise we'd need to add western/eastern emperors to the co-ruler box of all emperors from 286 to 480. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did think about that, but would that be so bad? They issued each others' coins and laws jointly, so it might not be a bad thing to have all of them listed, even if it is more work. With Constantine and Licinius it's particularly useful, because it makes it easier to see that Constantine and Licinius jointly made their sons caesares of one another on 1 March 317. I certainly think it's a bit incongruous for the Tetrarchs to just have one or two co-rulers listed. GPinkerton (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really feel strongly about it either way; and I agree in that the 286 to 480 emperors were generally not so much emperors of half of the empire as joint rulers of the entire thing. I would only take issue with that this might cause some confusion; Licinius II wasn't caesar under (not sure this is the correct terminology, but you understand what I'm trying to say) Constantine I, but under Licinius. If we add western/eastern emperors and co-rulers to all entries some of the later eastern emperors are going to have massive co-ruler boxes due to the rapid succession in the late Western Roman Empire. There's also the issue that many times they did not recognize each other's appointments, or even each other as legitimate emperors - Leo I recognized very few of the late Western Roman emperors as "true" emperors. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So the point I'm trying to make is that distinction between east and west was not official or anything like as defined as the distinction between an augustus and a caesar. All the caesares were "under" the augusti. Their respective rank was judged on their seniority - i.e., who had been emperor longest, not whether they were east or west at any one time. So, to return to Licinius and his brother-in-law and son, Constantine and Licinius augusti jointly created their sons caesares on the same day (1 March 317), very likely because that way none of the caesares could claim to be senior to any other. All these caesares: Licinius junior, Constantine junior, and Crispus, were "under" both Constantine and Licinius in the sense that they were junior emperors and their fathers were the senior. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't list Constantine's sister's son as a caesar under him, since I'm fairly sure the imperium of an emperor did not only extended across half the empire, but the whole thing, and Constantine arranged with his colleague for this to happen. Licinius and Constantine minted coins of one another's, so probably issued coins with the caesares on as well. Similarly with the Tetrarchy, the augusti had to recognize new caesares for their elevation to be valid; Constantius I had to accept Severus against expectations. Neither he nor Maximian were able unilaterally to elevate their sons Constantine and Maxentius; that happened irregularly in both cases. As for the east and west division, it would strike me as very odd to not list Honorius as a co-ruler of Arcadius, Valens as a co-ruler of Valentinian, and especially strange not to list Valentinian III as a co-ruler of Theodosius II, since it was he, augustus in the east, who first proclaimed Valentinian caesar (in the west), raising him to augustus a year later. As regards the aesthetics of Leo I et al., I feel we could just add as much information as possible and sort out the visual niceties thereafter - perhaps some sort of drop-down list or ultra-small font could be worked up. In any case it'd be a nice illustration of the "decline" in the west, with so many co-emperors coming and going in the career of a single eastern emperor. Since inscriptions and laws issued in the Codex Theodosianus were issued in the names of all reigning emperors east and west without distinction, I think it would be helpful if the whole picture was available on this list. We could distinguish the unrecognized or warring co-rulers with simple notes, as is already done with a few "unrecognized in x" instances. (Even the more-than-ephemeral usurpers could be included alongside in cases of major civil war: Maxentius and Constantine should show up as rival augusti in each others' entries I'd say, but I'm more concerned that the bona fide co-emperors are listed more inclusively. GPinkerton (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I made it clear enough but I do fundamentally agree with you; of course emperors like Honorius and Arcadius were co-rulers, but what I'm getting at is whether this might be more confusing to readers than it is helpful - in most cases the people listed as "co-rulers" currently were in a junior position relative to whoever they are listed together with (there are exceptions; such as Balbinus and Pupienus, and Andronikos II and Michael IX, though in those cases both rulers have their own entries in the list too). We could add them in and see how it looks, though. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oddly, the Cooley 2012 appendix doesn't list Hostilian or make any mention of Philip the Arab's son or Herennius Etruscus, so I haven't been able to add more exact dates or the arrangements of caesar vs augustus for these ones. Cooley just lists the augusti, so perhaps Philip the Younger and Herennius Etruscus didn't climb as high? GPinkerton (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are some emperors who are only listed sometimes, which is why I've cited several published lists for all of the sections. Notably, Maxentius seems to be left out so often that I considered not putting him in. Herennius, Philip II and Hostilian were all technically junior rulers to a more senior emperor (especially in Philip II's case since he was only 12 years old) but they were proclaimed augusti. There are are bound to be other sources that can be used for these specific cases. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at the Tetrarchs, not sure I've got everyone in, but I've put in everyone's colleagues as both caesar and augustus and the relevant dates. GPinkerton (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Cooley's list only notes which emperors are east and west after Theodosius and not before. This makes sense; I'm not sure how the tripartite division in September 337 would fit the binary east-west model anyway, and Galerius and Maximinus were both augusti simultaneously in the East. GPinkerton (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAIK it is pretty common to call emperors from 286 onwards "western" and "eastern"; both Constans I and Constantine II are then designated as "western". We could remove the labels from the pre-Honorius/Arcadius emperors but this is again to remove confusion; otherwise we'd still need to point it out some way. Well done with the Tetrarchs ! Some entries are huge now on account of the co-rulers listed so collapsible lists are probably the way to go if all of them are going to be in. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They do look a little bloated but adjusting the size of the columns might help; also, filling up the other boxes will help even things out. I notice some of the entries' sizes are determined by the size and shape of their picture, so maybe something can be changed there; making them bigger or smaller as appropriate. GPinkerton (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean the entries for Maximinus II and Licinius are enormous; I'm not sure this could be fixed ith adjustigin the size of the columns; the entries should all be roughly the same size so that it doesn't look so messy (though the Tetrarchy was of course a messy time). I think that either we just keep it to emperors/co-rulers who were direct co-rulers of whoever's entry they are in (i. e. remove Licinius and Licinius II from Constantine's box) or we're going to need some drop-down list-type system for some of the more bloated cases. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Fully arbitrary or not, that is the question
Hello & thank you for the good work you do! I've noticed that you are categorizing as "completely" legendary several semi-legendary kings of Swealand whom many reliable sources do not consider to be "completely" legendary. Please take care, as such changes en masse may be difficult (at least very time-consuming) to reverse. Eric the Victorious is considered by the Swedish government to be a historical king of Sweden, the first, and in that case especially you would be wise to reverse your change to the info box. Cordially, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm Swedish so I'm well aware of what is considered legendary and what is considered historical. I appreciate the concern and I am aware that there is a fine line; I've recently expanded the articles List of legendary kings of Sweden and House of Munsö, which now make it clear that the line of succession given by the sagas does not fit well with the more contemporary accounts of Adam of Bremen and Rimbert. Contrary to someone like Sigurd Ring, Eric the Victorious is a historical figure, yes. I haven't made any changes to his infobox or succession box, but I did add a tag on top that his article needs to make clear what is historical info and what is from the sagas since something like the Battle of Fýrisvellir, which figures quite a lot in his article, seems to be generally considered legendary rather than historical today (since it only appears in the sagas). The distinction between "legendary" and "semi-legendary" is not one I have seen anywhere other than on Wikipedia, but if this distinction is commonly used I would of course not be opposed to using it here as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Byzantine pretenders
Excellent work on Pretenders to the Byzantine throne, I am speechless! I had something like that on the back of my mind ever since first encountering the claims of the Lascorz family and the Angeli of the "Constantinian Order", and dealing with the occasional, deliberate or simply misguided, attempts to 'enrich' Wikipedia with them as factual, but this is a really comprehensive treatment of the topic. Kudos! You might also be interested in researching and adding to that article the Stefanopoli family of Corsica (of whom Demetrio Stefanopoli was the most notable member), who were recognized by the French king as descendants of the Komnenoi of Trebizond. Constantine  ✍  19:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

PS. I hope you intend to bring this to FA some time, I would love to see it on Wikipedia's main page! Constantine  ✍  20:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I tried to string together all of the claims I could find into something cohesive, so glad to see it works! The Stefanopoli family can (and will) definitely be added when I find the time. I think the main problem with the article right now is that some of the sources are a bit sub-par (I tried to use what I could find; the main source for "Marziano II" is a blog and the Lascorz family's own website is cited at one point), but it's definitely a topic I will work more on! Despite the difficulty in finding enough decent sources I managed to get Ferdinand Paleologus and Godscall Paleologue to GA, so I suppose nothing is impossible :)
 * I think the idea of Byzantine pretenders and post-1453 dreams of the Byzantine Empire is quite fascinating in of itself; though most of the claims seem to be untrue, it goes to show that Byzantium casts a long shadow. I hope that Andreas Palaiologos will just be the first in a line of FA:s dealing with these ideas and I would definitely not be opposed to one day getting the overview article for the entire thing onto the main page (and thank you for the encouragement!) :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've done some digging on the Stefanopoli, you can find it at Demetrio Stefanopoli's article. Unfortunately, my Italian is not so good (plus that horrible typeface!) as to fully read through Cambiagi's account, but the claimed genealogy of the family is probably that given by Prince Georges Comnène, so I went with that. At least Cambiagi verifies that this is an older tradition that existed in Corsica, probably similar in origin to the claims made by the various Phanariote families. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  16:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice! It's certainly an interesting claim. I added some of the stuff from your work (that they claimed descent from "Nikephoros", not George, and that it was a tradition before Demetrio made his claim) to the pretender article 👍 Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit request
I've begun my first pass at copyediting the article Constantine XI Palaiologos. Expect a ping on the article's talk page as I will most likely have questions. My process can be found here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  13:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Image captions
Hi Ichthyovenator. Regarding, is it just your personal preference, or are there actual Wikipedia rules you are alluding to? If so, could you point me to them? I believe this kind of images warrant detailed descriptions (they are nearly meaningless and only decorative without a detailed caption), and references are essential to back up the specifics of the description, as for everything on Wikipedia: see "Image captions should be referenced as appropriate just like any other part of the article" in Citing sources. पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was told image captions should be "short and sweet" during the copy edit of my article on Andreas Palaiologos. Manual of Style/Captions states that captions should be "succinct and informative". Your long captions are certainly informative but I don't think they are succinct (brief and clearly expressed). The MOS does state that captions do not have to be brief but that "More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting" and "readers wanting full detail can click through to the image description page" (i.e. on commons). For the caption I reverted in this specific case, I do not see how your longer captions is relevant to what is being discussed in the text; the image is in a section on Ashurbanipal and his family and thus it being a depiction of the king and his wife is relevant; details on other parts of the image are not really important in this context (that the head of the Elamite king is in the tree is interesting but it is not relevant right here).
 * As for citing captions, I cannot remember where I heard of it but I do feel like introducing new information in image captions that is not in the text (and thus having to cite it) should be avoided if possible. One big reason I had for changing around your work on the captions and images was that the article before I got back to it had a lot of images of different sizes seemingly all over the place (which I did not think looked aesthetically pleasing) and there was also a lot of sandwiching (which should not be done as per Manual of Style/Images). There was also the problem of your citations for the image captions clashing with the sfn citation style used in the rest of the article, which produced a messy ref section of different formats. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. Let's take one thing at a time:
 * 1) "Succint" indeed does not mean "brief": ""Succinctness" means using no superfluous or needless words. It is not the same as "brevity"" per Manual of Style/Captions. I believe my captions are indeed succint and informative, but I note that "More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting", although certainly not an absolute rule. I can indeed shorten the caption in question.
 * 2) References are actually required in captions on Wikipedia: "Image captions should be referenced as appropriate just like any other part of the article" in Citing sources. So I think you should clearly stop removing references from captions, that's a disservice to the quality of our encyclopedia. It will ensure our captions remain informative and properly referenced.
 * 3) Regarding citation style, you may be comfortable with sfn, but I'm not, although I'm trying (sometimes). Anyway, I don't think mixing citations styles is ground for reverts. If there is a rule compelling users to use a single citation style in articles, please point me to it.
 * 4) Regarding image sizes, please keep in mind that we all have different screen sizes, so what you find "aesthetically pleasing" will not necessarily be in accordance with what others find aesthetically pleasing. Some of the images were probably too large, but that's also because they are very intricate, requiring a good size for proper viewing. I do think you also reduced some of the image beyond reasonable, like the one captioned "The luxurious palace and gardens of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh"...
 * Please do not revert people without good and legitimate reasons, we're all in this together. Thanks for your undertanding पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is fair to say that I reverted your work without "good and legitimate reasons" since I clearly explained why I reverted what I did. Obviously discussion is good but you added the longer captions without any discussion in the first place so I feel like just pointing at me is a bit unfair. I apologize if my reverts and edits came off as just being antagonistic for the sake of it; I spent a lot of time working on Ashurbanipal and the other Sargonid kings so the state of the article is important to me. I will respond to your responses one at a time as well:
 * 1) I never said that your captions were not informative; they most certainly are. To use the relief depicting Ashurbanipal and his queen in the garden as an example, I do not see how a nine-line caption which goes into detail about every single thing depicted in the ancient art is relevant in this case. The image is used to illustrate a section on Ashurbanipal's family and is only relevant in that respect since it depicts Ashurbanipal's wife - this is the only thing that I feel is needed to include in the caption. As I said, any other info could be added to the image's information on Wikimedia Commons instead.
 * 2) Yes but note the use of the wording "as appropriate"; since image captions are supposed to be short (and not full-on paragraphs of information on their own), general practice has in my experience been that any information that needs to be cited in them should already be presented and cited in the text (and that it is then unnecessary to use citations in the image captions). The artwork in the articles on the Assyrian monarchs does not need to be described in so much detail that citations in the captions become necessary. As an example of uncited image captions (some are even quite lengthy), just look at the images in today's featured article (!) Carlos Castillo Armas.
 * 3) You are correct that me using sfn is just a personal preference and that mixed citation styles by itself is not a valid cause for reverting work. However, I know for a fact that I have been held up at good article nominations in the past because of mixed citation styles and Citing sources says that "Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style". This is not a huge problem either way since citations in a conflicting style could just be converted to the otherwise used style later on (if you add more refs and if you are uncomfortable with the sfn system I can convert them later).
 * 4) Yes, "aesthetically pleasing" is not a strong argument on my part but I feel like the sandwiching issue was a real problem before (and still is in some places). Yes, it is more difficult to look at some of the images in detail now but just as they would in any other article readers could simply click on the images to see them at full resolution if they want to examine them closer. In my experience most articles do not divert from the standard 220px size for the images; exceptions can be made for some images but having almost every single image in an article be of a different size is distracting in my opinion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In reference to ... could you actually produce Wikipedia rules and guidelines rather than just your own interpretations, "I was told"s and "in my experience"s?? So far the only clear rules that have emerged from this discussion are "Image captions should be referenced as appropriate just like any other part of the article" per Citing sources, and suggestions not to go much beyond three lines in captions and recommendations to write them "succintly" (not necesssarily "briefly") in Manual of Style/Captions, which is exactly what I am doing. This certainly does not give you the right to erase the efforts of others to properly reference image captions, which is actually recommended by Wikipedia per the above. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I questioned how you interprete the phrase "as appropriate" in the rule/guideline you are referencing; do you have any examples (preferrably on a GA or FA level) of an article citing its image captions to the level you are attempting to at Ashurbanipal's article? Image captions, even if long and detailed, tend to not be cited (as I showed with my example). It makes far more sense to have detailed info on the image cited on the commons page of that image so that citations do not need to be repeated for its caption every time that image is used. I feel like you are attempting to needlessly enforce your personal interpretation of a guideline on a single article, which makes that article stand out in this respect from virtually every other article of a similar level of quality (since they do not cite their captions). If citing captions is important (and you are not simply interpreting "as appropriate" as "in all cases"), how come not a single image captions is cited in the last four Today's Featured Articles (Osbert Lancaster, Melanie Barnett, Operation Cobra & Carlos Castillo Armas)? They have by consensus been decided to be examples of Wikipedia's best work and as such are expected to follow all rules and guidelines. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia rules clearly state that image captions "should be referenced as appropriate just like any other part of the article" (Citing sources), which fundamentally means that captions should be referenced just as the main text is. This simply means that anytime a caption states something important, it is good practice to reference it, just as we do for the main text. You cannot distort the expression "as appropriate", which obviously refers to the simple need to reference any significant statement, to claim that using referenced captions is generally "not appropriate", using your own personal criteria of appropriateness, as in the blanket statement "well, I don't think referenced captions are appropriate". Just to name a few FA articles using referenced (and sometimes very long) captions: Han dynasty, Macedonia (terminology), Maya civilization etc... They too "have by consensus been decided to be examples of Wikipedia's best work and as such are expected to follow all rules and guidelines." May I suggest that you show more tolerance for the work of others, and please respect the letter and spirit of Wikipedia rules, in this case Citing sources. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The examples you are providing hardly cite the captions to the same extent as you want to in Ashurbanipal's article. I also do not appreciate you attacking me for not "showing tolerance for the work of others", are you implying that I am just reverting your edits for the sake of it? I could argue that you are not "showing tolerance" for my work but that hardly gets us anywhere. I feel like I have presented my opinion and reasoning pretty clearly and I feel like you have ignored quite a lot of what I have had to say. Again; to me it seems like you are trying to apply your interpretation of a guideline on a single article which will make that article stand out from every single other article of similar quality in this respect. You seem very adamant about following the citing captions guideline in the most hardcore and literal interpretation possible but you (seemingly deliberately) ignore other guidelines, such as Manual of Style/Images being against sandwiching of images and it stating that "Images within an article, especially those near one another and on the same side, may be more appealing if presented at the same width". I have raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions so you are free to elaborate on your views there if you feel I misrepresented you. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions. Please note I haven't especially challenged your resolution of image sandwiching, which I understand can be an issue depending on the display format one uses. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I know, I was just pointing out that it clearly was not something you took into consideration when expanding and citing the captions (and adding more images) before; it was an attempt at questioning why citing the captions was so important if you disregard other guidelines. Sandwiching in of itself is not a huge problem; it can easily be fixed later by moving stuff around or removing some images so it's not really an important point on my part. Hope we get others weighing in on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions; if there is consensus for citing the captions the way you want I will not oppose it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear you feel very close to this article, and probably rightly so, but I hope you can also appreciate the amount of time and effort I have spent trying to find betters images for this article as well, about 80% of which I have provided as of today (a lot of searching and asking around as you might imagine...). Cheers पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly appreciate your work in tracking down and adding in the images; most of the images themselves that you added in are still there as of my last edit. They are a lot better than what was there previously and what I had to work with when expanding the article. I never meant to imply that you were deliberately making anything worse, so if my reverts and at points harsh tone came across that way I apologize. It is clear to me that the main concern for both of us is improving the article so hopefully some more opinions will resolve all this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Direct, reliable sources needed for Days of the Year pages
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not aware, no. Makes sense. It is worth noting that none of the other births are cited either but I can see that it's unnecessary to make that problem worse. Will cite next time! Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theodore Paleologus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theodore Paleologus 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 Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theodore Paleologus
The article Theodore Paleologus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Theodore Paleologus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kandalanu
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kandalanu 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nebuchadnezzar IV
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nebuchadnezzar IV 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nebuchadnezzar IV
The article Nebuchadnezzar IV 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:Nebuchadnezzar IV for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nebuchadnezzar IV
The article Nebuchadnezzar IV you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nebuchadnezzar IV for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kandalanu
The article Kandalanu 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:Kandalanu for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nebuchadnezzar III
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nebuchadnezzar III 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nebuchadnezzar III
The article Nebuchadnezzar III 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:Nebuchadnezzar III for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nebuchadnezzar III
The article Nebuchadnezzar III you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nebuchadnezzar III for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Babylonian revolts (484 BC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Babylonian revolts (484 BC) 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 Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kandalanu
The article Kandalanu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kandalanu for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nidin-Bel
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nidin-Bel 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nidin-Bel
The article Nidin-Bel 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:Nidin-Bel for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nidin-Bel
The article Nidin-Bel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nidin-Bel for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Babylonian revolts (484 BC)
The article Babylonian revolts (484 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Babylonian revolts (484 BC) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sennacherib
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy editors of the article Sennacherib has been completed.

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

I'll draw your attention to a change made by an unregistered user. They substituted "Israelites" for "Jews" in this caption in the Ancestry and Early Life section: "Expansion of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and the deportations of Israelites from the Levant, under the reigns of Sennacherib's three immediate predecessors as king; Tiglath-Pileser III, Shalmaneser V and Sargon II." I'llleave this to you to correct or not.

In some cases a city was mentioned as "city (name)" or "city of (name)". For consistency I changed them all to "city of ..." throughout the article.

Best of luck with the FA when you get to it.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your work on the article, ! All the changes you've made seem good. On the "Jews" -> "Israelites" change, I think "Israelites" can be kept, the terms seem to be used interchangeably for the group in question by historians writing of Sennacherib's time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Neriglissar
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Neriglissar 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Neriglissar
The article Neriglissar 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:Neriglissar for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Neriglissar
The article Neriglissar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Neriglissar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theodorious Paleologus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theodorious Paleologus 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 The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theodorious Paleologus
The article Theodorious Paleologus 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:Theodorious Paleologus for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theodorious Paleologus
The article Theodorious Paleologus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Theodorious Paleologus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Many thanks! Glad to see my contributions are appreciated :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Šćepan Mali
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Šćepan Mali 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Š?epan Mali
The article Š?epan Mali you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Š?epan Mali 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Šćepan Mali
The article Šćepan Mali 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:Šćepan Mali for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(Not logged User :b)
Hey, i'm kind of new at this editing thing mate sorry if i cause any annoying problem but i'm kind of worried about my IP adress as my Username is this somehow dangerus? i mean why my IP its as my Username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.237.34.235 (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries! I did not mean to come off as hostile or discourage you from editing anything with my reversions, I was just attempting to keep the content in the page reliably sourced. Adding your edit would be fine if you also add a source backing it up since everything on Wikipedia should be reliably sourced.
 * If you edit Wikipedia without being logged in, your IP adress will show up instead of your username. If you make an account, you will have a username instead of the IP adress (there are also other benefits of making an account). You can make an account here. If you're worried about security concerns, the only real big thing about using the IP adress is that it will be easy for anyone interested to figure out where you're editing from (IP adresses can be used to determine your physical location). This usually isn't a huge issue since there are thousands of other non-logged in users editing Wikipedia every day and the fact that many IP adresses leads you to the location of the network providers and not the users themselves (for instance, my IP adress gives a place in a completely different city from the one I live in). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome friend! You took away a little worrying doubt from me, and yes, I just created an account but even so, the edits I made with my IP on the page of the Roman people are still there but thanks to your information I know that it is not a factor that I should worry about. Thank you very much! (Not logged User :b) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.237.34.235 (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea Monsters (TV series)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sea Monsters (TV series) 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit
Excellent work on Šćepan Mali. Looks like future FA material to me. If you need a thorough copy edit of the article I'd be happy to help. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! You're more than welcome to go through and copy edit the article. I've just re-nominated it for GA so if you think it will go fast you could get to it whenever you want :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea Monsters (TV series)
The article Sea Monsters (TV series) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sea Monsters (TV series) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theodore Paleologus (Junior)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theodore Paleologus (Junior) 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theodore Paleologus (Junior)
The article Theodore Paleologus (Junior) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Theodore Paleologus (Junior) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tocco family
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tocco family 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 Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)