User talk:Ichthyovenator/Archive 4

Your GA nomination of Shamash-shum-ukin
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shamash-shum-ukin 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) 19:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John VII Palaiologos
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John VII 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 Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shamash-shum-ukin
The article Shamash-shum-ukin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shamash-shum-ukin 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) 13:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ajuda
Você sabe editar árvores genealógicas ? NerdZizc (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made a few family trees but I'm not very good at it (certainly not at making big ones). This might help: Help:Family trees. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator : Eu sou um editor da Wikipédia lusófona e vi que você editou uma árvore genealógica no artigo Império Neobabilônico, e por isso acho que você poderia me ajudar. O artigo Kaššaya na versão portuguesa (https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassaia) tem uma árvore genealógica idêntica ao artigo Império Neobabilônico. Eu queria fazer a linha que associa Bel-shum-iskun ao seu filho Neriglissar, mas eu não sei fazer isso. NerdZizc (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now added Bel-shum-ishkun to the family tree in the English Neo-Babylonian Empire article, which might help with how this can be done in the Portugese version of Kashshaya's article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Eugenio Lascorz
Hello:

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

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

I think the article provides a succinct outline of the man and his crusade.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking the time to go through the article! Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tocco family
The article Tocco family you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tocco family 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) 07:41, 9 December 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 Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Š?epan Mali
The article Š?epan Mali you nominated as a good article is now being reviewed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John VII Palaiologos
The article John VII Palaiologos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John VII 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 Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Šćepan Mali GA Passed
Dear Ichthyovenator. I have promoted the article Šćepan Mali to GA status. The article is gone from the queue but it does not seem to want to alert you nor does it seem to add the +symbol on the top of the article page. I think we worked quite nicely together. Would you like me to pass on to Arda-Mulissu? Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thorough review. The GA bot has some kind of issue with the characters in the article title, that is probably why it failed to add the + symbol (and failed to do the other things), I've gone ahead and added it manually since you promoted the article. You're very welcome to review Arda-Mulissu as well if you want to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arda-Mulissu
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arda-Mulissu 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 Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eugenio Lascorz
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eugenio Lascorz 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 Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eugenio Lascorz
The article Eugenio Lascorz 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:Eugenio Lascorz for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eugenio Lascorz
The article Eugenio Lascorz you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eugenio Lascorz 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 Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources on Lascorz
Hi Ichthyovenator! As usual, thanks for fleshing out the article on Eugenio Lascorz. However, I remain unconvinced about the claims that he was taken seriously by Greek politicians. Hernández de la Fuente cites Domingo for this (which incidentally should be rectified in the article), but on these issues Domingo mostly cites Castro (a partisan of Lascorz) and the family archive. I am rather shocked, reading through Domingo's article, that he takes their claims of recognition at almost face value, and does not bother to trace down the documents that Castro claimed to rely on.

For example, in pp. 63–64, Domingo mentions the supposed benediction by Patriarch Meletios in March 1922, "según consta en un documento conservado en el archivo familiar". The text, as transmitted, is banal in the extreme; apart from addressing Lascorz as "Your Highness", it does not imply any sort of recognition and is simply a polite 'thank you' note by the patriarchal secretary. In p. 64, the conferment of the Grand Cross of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre is mentioned with a photo of the diploma, again, according to the family archive and Castro. The diploma is indeed that of the order (cf. in the Greek Literary and Historical Archive) but it would not be the first time that someone has forged a diploma, or obtained a copy and added his name. No attempt was made to contact the patriarchate and confirm its award, or examine the document for authenticity.

Regarding the 1923/24 candidacy for the throne, p. 75 footnote 89 cites a 1935 article of La Monarquía, which in turn cites 'numerous' other newspapers of the period, including the French Le Journal of 19 December 1923 (nothing to be found here on Lascorz' candidacy, the paper discusses the departure of George II); or the Greek ultra-monarchist Skrip (no issue mentioned), which can also be consulted online, but which given its credentials is extremely unlikely to have even mentioned such a candidacy (I will go through the issues when I have time); Ethnos (I searched the issues from 19 December 1923 and the next few days, nothing; I suspect the rest will look similar. Domingo repeats the claim by Castro that Lascorz had the support of general Andreas Bairas, without verifying this (p. 80 note 96). The candidacy is frankly incredible given the polarization of the country: on the one hand were the Venizelists who were republicans, and on the other the monarchists, but they were focused on the Glucksburg dynasty, not just any candidate. The Manifesto of the six Greek colonies is also accepted at face value by Domingo, although he does point out that it did not reflect political realities; but no effort is made to examine the manifesto's authenticity, or the identities and roles of the signatories in the supposed six diaspora communities. Indeed, it does not appear that Domingo speaks Greek or has consulted any Greek sources, unlike his examination of the Spanish press.

Likewise at face value are accepted the assertions in Castro's work by Lascorz' son (!) that well-known journalists from all over the world came to interview him; where are clips of the interviews? Ditto for the supposed committee that visited him in 1935 on behalf of Plastiras. The "Mr. Melioudi" cited as an MP is nowhere to be found in the records of the Greek Parliament, and the "colonel Contopirakis" is not in the lists of Greek officers in 1930 (when he must have been at least a captain), no matter what variations of transliteration may have been used.

In summary, Domingo makes a good analysis of Lascorz' life and his network of supporters in his native Spain, but his article contains a fundamental failure in omitting any research in Greek sources, in order to assess the claims of Lascorz and his partisans about Greek support. He compounds that failure by taking these claims of extensive contacts with Greek journalists, politicians, etc. at face value. The truth is probably much closer to the report of the Spanish ambassador in the appendix: "Lo que me consta positivamente es que en este país nadie de ocupa ni preocupa de su existencia y que cuando se hace mención de este caso se toma a broma". It appears to me that Lascorz created an echo chamber in Spain, but I remain unconvinced that he had any impact in Greek politics or was ever seriously entertained as a candidate by any Greek political or military figure. Constantine  ✍  12:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that I accepted Domingo's work at face value as it was one of the few actually published sources on Lascorz that I could track down. Since Domingo is more or less the main source for the article as it is now this presents a great problem, I find your objections here convincing but do you have any suggestions for alternate sources that could be used for rewrites, especially of the more obviously erroneous parts? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's understandable, but in cases such as this, extreme skepticism is warranted. I went into the article expecting to find a rebuttal based at least partly on an examination of Greek primary sources and a cross-referencing of the names and correspondence claimed by Lascorz, and the lack thereof was immediately apparent. Unfortunately, I don't know of any other source, and my online searches for Greek references to the family have so far returned only an entry for some material gifted by the family to the Greek state archives (apparently a few photographs). In Greece, this an almost entirely unknown issue. My recommendation for now would be to qualify the parts about ties with Greek figures by explicitly attributing them to the family and its circle, e.g., 'the family archive contains X, which they claim to have been sent by Y...', '...according to Castro, who was an ardent supporter of Lascorz' claims, a delegation from Greece came...' etc. I will start looking at the claimed sources (newspapers) in more detail, and I think we can add a rebuttal, point-by-point, of some of these assertions. This veers close to WP:OR, but if we use sources to 'check' information claimed as accurate by the family's propagandists and by Domingo, then that is permissible, I think, and is definitely preferable to not dealing with them at all. We could also contact Domingo and ask him, I suppose, whether he has something to add. Constantine  ✍  18:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have much time tomorrow but I can look through the article thoroughly on thursday/friday and add qualifications per your suggestion to all questionable parts. Don't know if it would be fun for anyone involved to ask Domingo about the bias of his work but I am for adding rebuttals by fact-checking with citations to the primary sources, if copies of those can be tracked down. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, most of the actual content with Greek figures is restricted to a single paragraph; I've tried and edit the paragraph in question to make it clear that Lascorz and his family claimed this is what happened. I've also removed it from the lede. At least a start at putting more doubt on some of the more fantastical claims. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try to have a look over the following days. Constantine  ✍  17:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aigialosuchus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aigialosuchus 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Dmanisi hominins?
It looked like you were trying to get this to FAC (or at least GAN). What happened?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Essentially I confused myself and I grew concerned in regards to most of the sources basically being written by the same people; I'm not sure if any real critical info is missing as the article stands right now (maybe more on the tools, if that exists). There is no reason to mistrust the Dmanisi research team but the classification of these fossils is controversial so how does one handle compiling an article based on the available literature when over 50 % of the literature shares the same opinion because it is written by the same research team?
 * There is even the issue of whether the article should have a taxobox. Regardless of how one classifies the fossils everyone seems to agree that they are a distinct taxon (species/subspecies/"subsubspecies") so there is no reason not to use a taxobox, but what should the taxon be designated as? "Homo erectus ergaster georgicus" is ridiculous and doesn't match with the Wikipedia template, but it is what the Dmanisi research team calls the fossils and not formally invalid per the rules of naming. This isn't a case like the Denisovans where the taxon is yet to be named, Homo georgicus has been formally described so it would be a matter of deciding which combination (H. georgicus, H. erectus georgicus, H. ergaster georgicus or H. erectus ergaster georgicus) to use.
 * I also had a concern with the proportions between the sections in the article; as it stands "taxonomy" takes up more than half of the article. It's not surprising, considering the fossils in question, but I worry that the detail might be a tad excessive. I realize this article is important to your ongoing effort to get the hominin articles up to par so I can return to it (though unsure if much more needs to be done). Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whenever Ι see anyone refer to these guys, it's usually simply Dmanisi hominins. For Herto Man I left the taxobox in there even though the name is usually never used except to say it's invalid (maybe I should take it out?). I think a lack of taxobox is justified in this instance. A lot of extinct creatures are only studied by the same group of people (like Ambulocetus) so it's not out of the ordinary if the literature seems one-sided considering only that one side exists. The length of the taxonomy section I'd say is okay considering how influential Dmanisi has been (though glossing over I see at least a couple sentences which can be cut). If you put it to GAN, I'll review it for you. It looks just about complete  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it then! I've got other stuff ongoing as well so I'm not sure how swift my responses will be to any queries, but if you feel that it's ready for GAN I'm not going to argue with that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: Herto Man, if the consensus is that idaltu is invalid, I would probably have taken the taxobox out (as I did on Homo gautengensis; which seems to be not be accepted very much outside of one researcher's work); idaltu is also seemingly presented as valid elsewhere as well on WP (such as in the taxobox of Human), so perhaps (if you want to remove it) that would need further discussion somewhere? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dmanisi hominins
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dmanisi hominins 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) 16:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arda-Mulissu
The article Arda-Mulissu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arda-Mulissu 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 Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Sennacherib

 * Thank you! Definitely wouldn't mind Sennacherib showing up on the Main page one day, swamped with a lot of stuff currently but a TFA nomination is not out of the question in the near future :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aigialosuchus
The article Aigialosuchus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aigialosuchus 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Dougal Dixon
It was two years ago or so but wanted to say thanks for your work on that article. I don't know how it's been two years since I visited it but I guess I hadn't since your improvements and I was pleasantly surprised. — Mainly 01:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hehe no problem, my work on Dixon's article was kinda tangential but I spent a lot of time working on the articles for his books :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nabopolassar
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nabopolassar 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) 15:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

CDA
Ichthyovenato: An excerpt from the website Beaulieu Paul-Alain says this: According to CAD, the name is probably derived etymologically from the word Kaššu “kassite”. Do you know what the acronym CDA means? Mawer10 (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're giving me two acronyms here (CAD and CDA) and I can't see the portion of the text you talk about so I don't which one Beaulieu references, but both are acronyms for relevant works so I'll give you both here. CAD is the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, a huge project to compile a dictionary of the Akkadian language, and CDA is the Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, a smaller scale work that often references the CAD. You'll have to see which acronym is the one Beaulieu actually uses but hopefully this was of help. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I was wrong to quote the site. The site is this here. And the acronym is CAD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawer10 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see now. He's referencing the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dmanisi hominins
The article Dmanisi hominins you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dmanisi hominins 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 Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nabopolassar
The article Nabopolassar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nabopolassar 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for Sennacherib, about ancient Assyria's most famous king. Sennacherib appears as a ruthless conqueror in the Bible, with his attack on Jerusalem being portrayed (and later remembered) as a near-apocalyptic event, the city only being saved through divine intervention. The real Sennacherib was more tragic and seemingly uninterested in conquest. He was superstitious due to a religiously damning fate that befell his father and he built the greatest city the world had ever seen up until his time. Throughout most of his reign he was plagued by problems caused by his arch-enemy, Marduk-apla-iddina II of Babylon. Sennacherib stands out among the Assyrian kings as a complex figure in his own right; his reign and his actions read more like a narrative, riddled with twists and heartbreak, than the otherwise seemingly randomly directed campaigns of his predecessors and there is significant discussion to be had in regards to his actual character and who he was as a person."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shalmaneser V
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shalmaneser V 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) 07:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shalmaneser V
The article Shalmaneser V 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:Shalmaneser V for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ba'u-asītu
Goodnight! This website has a text that talks about a Babylonian princess named Ba'u-asītu. I'm having trouble accessing the content on the site. Can you access the content on the site? Could you create the article Ba'u-asītu or Innin-etirat with this website? Mawer (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! Ba'u-asītu was one of Nebuchadnezzar's daughters and a sister of Kaššaya. I've been working on the Babylonian kings for a while now and my next project as part of that is to work on Nebuchadnezzar, which also involves researching more about his family and descendants. Ba'u-asītu is very obscure, as far as I know she's only known from a single document and all we know about her other than her being a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar is that she owned a house, probably at Uruk. It's not a lot of material to work with, and I think it might be best to just include information on her in her father's article (see for instance how it's done with Sennacherib's children - we have articles for the three who we know reasonably much about and the other five children get a few paragraphs each in Sennacherib's article). The case for Innin-etirat is similar - very little is known about her.
 * That said, if you are interested in reading the text you linked you can find the full text accessible here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I take this opportunity to invite you to read the article Evil-Merodaque.
 * A very nice article! I notice you've worked on it quite extensively, well done! I intend to work on Amel-Marduk's article here on the English wikipedia after I'm finished with Nebuchadnezzar - then the Chaldean dynasty will be fully accounted for. If you want to add more to the Portuguese article I can recommend Weiershäuser & Novotny (2020), which features translations of (what little there is of) Amel-Marduk's inscriptions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Mawer10 (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ancient syria and mesopotamia template
I dont know who created this template but its totally misleading, why am I seeing it on every Iraq (mesopotamia) related article? Its like adding templates of egypt or iraq on ottoman empire articles!
 * With all due respect, the template is not misleading. If you look at what the template contains, it shows the succession of civilizations in the ancient fertile crescent (i.e. northern and southern Mesopotamia + Syria). The Iraq template you wanted to add instead is more about the modern country, whereas this template is about which empires or states ruled these areas at any given point in time - it's not like adding egypt or iraq templates to pages about the Ottomans since "Mesopotamia" in the template does include the states who existed in what today is Iraq. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amel-Marduk
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Amel-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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amel-Marduk
The article Amel-Marduk you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Amel-Marduk 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) 20:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Andreas Palaiologos scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Andreas Palaiologos article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 29, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/July 29, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shalmaneser V
The article Shalmaneser V you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shalmaneser V 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) 20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

King of Sumer
Hi Ichthyovenator, I saw you did a lot of nice work on articles like King of Sumer and Akkad and Akkadian royal titulary. I was wondering whether you were also interested in creating a short separate article on the title King of Sumer (just a stub, if need be, with 1-2 sources)? King of Sumer currently redirects to Sumerian King List, but that's rather weird since that article doesn't deal with the title as such (and also shouldn't, as it's about the cuneiform text). Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I agree that the current Sumerian King List article is problematic - it essentially combines what should be two or three different articles; an article on the document itself, a list of rulers of Sumer (with legendary content, such as the reign lengths in the list, kept to a minimum) and an article on kingship in Sumer (titles, perceptions and evolution of kingship etc.; AFAIK most of the rulers in the SKL would not actually have titled themselves as 'kings of Sumer'); the latter two might be combinable to one.
 * I've mainly worked on the late stages of Mesopotamian history (Neo-Assyria and Neo-Babylon) so I'm not as familiar with old Sumer, but I have planned to work on this and I can definitely try and set up a short start to an article sometime soon :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't feel up to it, then please don't feel pressured at all! I agree on the state of the article on Sumerian King List. I've been working on a draft in my sandbox that would address some of these issues, but I am not sure whether I will eventually post it, as it seems that the article on the SKL draws a lot of attention and discussions, for some reason, and I'm not sure I'm up to that...
 * And yes, the SKL rulers would not be termed king of Sumer, but simply lugal, as I understand it, but that makes the current redirect from King of Sumer to Sumerian King List all the more weird.
 * Anyway, keep up the good work! --Zoeperkoe (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, no pressure at all! As I said, I have been thinking about working on this for some time. I think your draft looks like it is going to be far superior to what the current article is. It's a great start at something that summarizes and discusses, rather than reproduces, which I believe the actual Sumerian King List article should be like. You should definitely keep working on it! :) In my experience there aren't that many active Ancient Near East editors on Wikipedia anyway and a fully realized edit of your version is going to be better than what we have so I don't think there will be much opposition. We'd just have to make sure that the list of rulers, or at least a list of rulers - I'm envisioning something like the more standard lists of monarchs, with some more nuanced approximate regnal dates where possible (rather than relying on the SKL itself) - is kept somewhere else and not removed from Wikipedia entirely. I can get to working on something soon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! The ANE is among the historical periods and places I find the most interesting. Nebuchadnezzar was the last of the Neo-Babylonian rulers I got to because his article needed more research and thoroughness than the others, given that he is by far the most famous. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here, I will give this back to you, I do not want it
Homo longi I'll be responding to you here since it is arguably quite unprofessional to argue on an unrelated user's talk page (something I explicitly told you twice). Your last response to me on Joe Roe's talk page is ridiculous:

'We both know you are trying to recruit editors to support a second attempt at a move, without waiting a significant amount of time, as advised by Joe Roe. In addition, we both know you are obsessed with trying to change the article name to Homo longi even though there was no consensus. May I suggest you move on to other activities now; the issue has been resolved by a neutral third-party, unlike what you espouse to be.' You are directing several wild accusations against me here so I'll respond to them one at a time. 'We both know you are trying to recruit editors to support a second attempt at a move, without waiting a significant amount of time, as advised by Joe Roe' is blatantly false. I'm explicitly holding off on making a second attempt at a move and instead asking at relevant WikiProjects if there would be interest in conducting one. Joe Roe advised waiting a few months (not a 'significant amount of time' on the level of 'several years', as suggested by you). As Joe Roe explicitly said, there are also no regulations against starting a discussion sooner. You are yourself guilty of recruiting hand-picked editors to support your position previously, so I feel like you're just projecting here.

'We both know you are obsessed with trying to change the article name to Homo longi even though there was no consensus' is ridiculous considering your obsessive, and arguably disruptive considering they were based on misunderstandings and you for the most part never responded to those that refuted you, comments in the discussion on the article's talk page. Homo longi is objectively the better title based on Wikipedia policy, a position I hold on to given that none of the opposing voters refuted the points I made, and I'd argue that a majority did agree with that considering the final votes were 16-10. I think you understand just as well as I do that 'no consensus' means that the issue is not resolved, just that the discussion grew stale. I don't see why you would oppose a second move discussion since strong, policy-based arguments are just as likely at making the case for the current title ('Dragon Man (archaic human)') stronger (i.e. resulting in "keep" rather than "no consensus") as they are at getting the article moved. It should be in your interest as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is is very unorthodox and unprofessional behaviour to 'give back' comments from your talkpage to the editor who left them. I see that you tend to blank your talk page frequently - especially when dealt with criticism towards your conduct on Wikipedia (1, 2, 3), which concerns me. It is also not lost to me that you once again, as usual, did not respond to any of the points I made in the above comment. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Shalmaneser V
The Bible should be used as a source when scholars say it should, not aprioristically excluded. In any case, I recognize that my reference to the Book of Tobit was indeed unnecessary.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Bible should not be cited directly in an article on an historical figure given that it's a primary source and a lot of the details it provides on the history of the Ancient Near East contradict the historical record, including its accounts of prominent figures such as Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar II and Belshazzar. If scholars in some case believe Biblical information is correct, then the works of those scholars, where they discuss this, should be cited rather than the Bible itself. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * don't misunderstand me, I am no fundamentalist or Bible-basher. I simply believe that the Bible, critically examined, contains historical data and should, therefore, not be aprioristically dismissed. Of course, we must follow what scholars say.--Karma1998 (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is important historical information in the Bible that should not be dismissed, but I also believe that Biblical content should not be added unless it is accepted as true by the scholarly community (with citations to scholarly work then needed). In the article on Sennacherib, which I wrote, Biblical information such as Hezekiah's rebellion and the siege of Jerusalem is included, because scholars accept these as real events, but the account of Sennacherib being defeated by an angel is mentioned as unlikely, with other explanations of his defeat included, given that this is the scholarly consensus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * of course, I also don't believe that an agel slaughtered 185,000 Assyrian troops, and I would never add this to a Wikipedia article (although I think that a plague might have happened in the Assyrian camp, but this is speculation).--Karma1998 (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that you believed an angel was responsible, I just used Sennacherib as an example since it's a biblical account where some details are accepted by scholars and others are dismissed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eocarcinosoma
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eocarcinosoma 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Holmipterus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Holmipterus 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carcinosomatidae
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carcinosomatidae 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rhinocarcinosoma
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rhinocarcinosoma 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Andreas Palaiologos, in troduced as "one of my favourite historical figures, Andreas Palaiologos, nephew of the last Byzantine emperor and "emperor"-in-exile from the 1480s to 1502."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pleasure is all mine with this one - maybe in death he can get the recognition he never got in life. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eocarcinosoma
The article Eocarcinosoma you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eocarcinosoma 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Holmipterus
The article Holmipterus 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:Holmipterus for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rhinocarcinosoma
The article Rhinocarcinosoma 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:Rhinocarcinosoma for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carcinosomatidae
The article Carcinosomatidae 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:Carcinosomatidae for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Holmipterus
The article Holmipterus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Holmipterus 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carcinosomatidae
The article Carcinosomatidae you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Carcinosomatidae 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rhinocarcinosoma
The article Rhinocarcinosoma you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rhinocarcinosoma 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Megalograptus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Megalograptus 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 Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Megalograptus
The article Megalograptus 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:Megalograptus for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Terropterus
The article Terropterus 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:Terropterus for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Megalograptus
The article Megalograptus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Megalograptus 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 Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wiedopterus
The article Wiedopterus 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:Wiedopterus for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Echinognathus
The article Echinognathus 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:Echinognathus for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Tocco familiy characters
Hi Ichthyovenator. Let me tell you that your editions on Tocco family characters are awesome. Good job. I wonder if you could improve the article Carlo I Tocco. Cheers. Kardam (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for the kind words. I'm swamped with other projects at this time; Carlo I Tocco is a very interesting figure, and one I could see myself working on in the future unless someone else gets to it first, but at this time I have to work on other things. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leonardo III Tocco
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Leonardo III Tocco 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 Sahaib3005 -- Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romulus Augustulus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solidus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Dynasty of the Median Empire
Good afternoon, I'm an editor for the Portuguese-speaking Wikipedia. On my test page there is a family tree of the median dynasty. The family tree is not very good: some boxes are bigger than others and I can't connect Amytis, daughter of Astyages, to Cyrus the Great; because you participate in WikiProject Ancient Near East I think this is of interest to you. Could you create a better family tree for this dynasty? I need a better family tree for the meda dynasty article. You can make the tree entirely in English as I can translate to Portuguese. So that your contribution is not just from the Portuguese Wikipedia, the article median dynasty could have an English-speaking version. Mawer10 (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! The boxes being of different sizes is an unfortunate side effect of how the family tree system is implemented - you can see the same effect in my family trees for the Sargonid dynasty and Chaldean dynasty. I could absolutely try to create a family tree, though I can't promise it will look better from what you've done. I haven't researched the Medes or Achaemenids extensively; do I understand you correctly in that Amytis, daughter of Astyages, should be marked as the wife of both Espitamas and Cyrus the Great (and mother of the children of both)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Amytis was the mother of the children of Cyrus and Spitamas according to the Greek historian Ctesias of Cnidus. A detail: the Greek historian Herodotus disagrees with Ctesias in stating that the mother of Cyrus' children was Cassandane, but this can be put in a note. Mawer10 (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Median Dynasty Summary

Phraortes was the father of Deioces. Deioces was the father of another Phraortes. This Fraortes was Cyaxares' father. Cyaxares had a son named Astyages and probably had a daughter named Amytis of Media who married Nebuchadnezzar II and may have been the mother of Amel-Marduk. Astyages married Aryenis, daughter of Alyattes of Lydia, after the Battle of Eclipse. Ctesias states that Astyages had a daughter named Amytis, who married Spitamas and after becoming a widow married Cyrus, who according to Herodotus was Mandane's son with Cambyses I, that is, grandson of Astyages. Xenophon says that Astyages had a son named Cyaxares II, who is not mentioned by Herodotus and Ctesias. It is unlikely that this Cyaxares II ever existed. Mawer10 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info. I'll see if I can put something together tomorrow. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm done! How do you feel about this one? The boxes are a bit more compact and Amytis is now connected like you said she should be. I didn't add the colors for the other dynasties but you could do that on your own if you feel they are necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It is perfect. I will soon translate the article Median Dynasty into English. Mawer10 (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Julius Nepos
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Julius Nepos 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) 19:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Regalianus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Regalianus 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 Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Regalianus
The article Regalianus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Regalianus 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 Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Labashi-Marduk
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Labashi-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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nabonidus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nabonidus 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) 11:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Julius Nepos
The article Julius Nepos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Julius Nepos 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Labashi-Marduk
The article Labashi-Marduk you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Labashi-Marduk 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nebuchadnezzar II
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nebuchadnezzar 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 Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nebuchadnezzar II
The article Nebuchadnezzar 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:Nebuchadnezzar II for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leonardo III Tocco
The article Leonardo III Tocco you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Leonardo III Tocco 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 Sahaib3005 -- Sahaib3005 (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nabonidus
The article Nabonidus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nabonidus 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nebuchadnezzar II
The article Nebuchadnezzar II you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II 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 Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roman people
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roman people 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 Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roman people
The article Roman people 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:Roman people for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine Arianiti
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constantine Arianiti 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) 14:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine Arianiti
The article Constantine Arianiti you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constantine Arianiti 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gian Antonio Lazier
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gian Antonio Lazier 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) 06:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gian Antonio Lazier
The article Gian Antonio Lazier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gian Antonio Lazier 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Jerónimo Zurita y Castro
Hi, Ichthyovenator. I have noticed that you wrote this paragraph on Leonardo III Tocco's article:

The contemporary Spanish historian Jerónimo Zurita y Castro, who also visited Leonardo's domain, noted that the prosperity of the islands entitled Leonardo to rightfully be called a king, rather than a mere despot or count palatine.

I consider that is incorrect becuase Jerónimo Zurita y Castro was born in 1512 and Leonardo III had already died, exactly in 1503 o before. When he visited the islands, they were ruled by the Venetians, so he wasn't a contemporary of Leonardo. Cheers Kardam (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out, I have corrected the mistake. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andronikos V Palaiologos
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andronikos V 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) 04:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andronikos V Palaiologos
The article Andronikos V Palaiologos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andronikos V 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Roman and Byzantine emperor Wikiproject
Hey Ichthyovenator,

Wanted to reach out to you about considering a mini-wikiproject for the Roman and Byzantine emperors; as the organization of Wikipedia's various pages and lists make it possible to miss a number of emperors, usurpers, etc. The wikiproject might help by allowing a one-stop-shop of the various emperors, "emperors", and usurpers. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  18:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! I think this sounds like a great idea and I would definitely be interested in participating. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've started it up at WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperors. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  20:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've joined up :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pyxis of Andronikos V.png
Thanks for uploading File:Pyxis of Andronikos V.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Grand Masters of the Constantinian Order of Saint George, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duke of Castro.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mutinensis gr. 122
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mutinensis gr. 122 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mutinensis gr. 122
The article Mutinensis gr. 122 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mutinensis gr. 122 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar
Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Hopefully readers will consider the updated version more useful. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)