Welcome!
Hello, Cerme, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme))
before the question. Again, welcome!
Hello! I've enjoyed your contributions, especially in the Paulo Francis article. Congratulations.
But I'm writing here to ask for some help. I'm having some trouble in the White Brazilian article, where a guy called Opinoso seems to behave to be the owner of the place. Would it be too much abuse to ask you to have a look there and make some comments?]
Thank you! Ninguém (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I've replied to your question on my talk here. • Rabo³ • 14:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for translating Veyne's original text. It does seem that Veyne strongly implied the connection, though (and perhaps this is something missing in translation) he seems not so incautious as to outright say it. I therefore believe that the sentence you added is legitimate. However: I think the original discussion of the events went on much too long, so your sentence might need to stay out anyways. As I recall (I haven't read the articles on this issue for about two years), Veyne's rationale of dynastic intrigue was developed more fully in standalone articles. They emphasized the intrigues of the female dynasts: Wishing to promote their own line, they made sure that the bastard-son wouldn't get anywhere near the throne. Unfortunately, Veyne doesn't seem (on the paragraphs you've quoted) to want to guess at the motives and mechanisms in detail ("these murders, whose reason we ignore").
Some months ago, another user added a prolonged narrative of the events, based entirely on Odahl's book. I didn't want to remove it—it provided an explanation, a sympathetic one perhaps, but one I hadn't had in my original passage—but I wanted to caution against accepting it. So I added some hostile reviews of Odahl to a footnote. Probably not the best thing to do. If we were going to add another paragraph, or cut some of the source criticism instead (I love that part, though! Don't destroy that part!), I would like to get a full overview of the competing psychological guesses in the scholarly literature. I feel that if we kept your sentence, we might downplay the most popular explanation on the market—that honest, doughty Constantine was outmanouevered by his wife and his mother, and convinced to murder his bastard son. Hmm.
There's some need for extended discussion of this material, but "Constantine I" is probably not roomy enough to hold it all. I've been wondering to myself how I'm going to break the full biography into more source-focused and detailed subarticles, but haven't been able to think of a good solution. Executions of Crispus and Fausta might be a good idea for a start, though.
Uh, anyways: CONCLUSIONS. You have convinced me. You should re-add that sentence, cited to both passages, although you might want to add a cite to a paper that discusses that theory in more detail.
P.S.: What is the French word you're translating as "bigwig"? You did that at Diocletian, too. You might want to find another word for that; "bigwig" is informal and uncommon in modern English.
P.P.S.: Cerme, I love your content additions (Maybe you look up the "important" French books on these subjects, so that you can add something completely new: G. Dagron's Naissance d'une capitale and Constantinople imaginaire, C. Mango's Le développement urbain de Constantinople (IVe–VIIe siècles), E. Patlagean's Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance (4e–7e siècles). Might be too late and too "socioeconomic" for your interests, though.), but you consistently make a small number of formatting mistakes. First: Sometimes you ignore the periods at the end of sentences that aren't yours. You should remove the period if you're going to extend the sentence, replacing it with a comma/colon/semicolon as the case requires. Second: You put the footnotes before punctuation, but Wikipedia's Manual of Style asks that they be placed after. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I've deprodded it, because of the following sources: [1], [ttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0atC9nVjn5YC&pg=PA275&dq=%22Olavo+de+Carvalho%22&hl=en&ei=hW4iTI3wPJCVOISvha4F&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22Olavo%20de%20Carvalho%22&f=false] and [2]. I have only a very basic grasp of Portuguese, and I think the coverage is borderline, so please take this to WP:AFD if you wish. Thanks. Claritas § 20:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cerme,
I've reversed your latest edit. I think you have a perfectly fair point about qualifying and disclosing potential bias on Veja's part. However, this is not a self-admitted bias (IE: They don't claim to hold that point of view) so without reliable sources ascribing that point of view, this very much runs afoul of NPOV. If you can provide a neutral source describing Veja in that manner, I see no problem with your edit.--Dali-Llama (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dilillama: A quick search on Google Scholar offered a paper presented, in English, by a Brazilian scholar at the 2010 LASA Congress. I shall work further on thisCerme (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paulo Francis. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RafaAzevedo msg 12:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC) This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Paula_Francis.2C_Olavo_de_Carvalho, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This is in response to a WP:WQA discussion about you. Those comments are absolutely unacceptable, and you will be blocked if you continue. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Modest Barnstar | |
Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC) |
No I'm sorry the reason that page doesn't make sense is because the English is appalling and unintelligible. Maybe staging wasn't the right correction but I only did that one because I can't make any sense of the rest of it whatsoever. Reichsfürst (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cerme,
Using images from commons is actually quite easy, and addictive once you get used to it. First, let's talk about Commons.
In a separate window, open up commons here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
You can use the search bar in the upper right to find relevant images, which might take some creativity since they are often poorly tagged and labelled. You might need to look for something really broad, like a country name, and then search through five hundred images before you find something relevant, but that's a worst case scenario.
If you find images that are copyright-free (typically due to age - the creator having died more than 70 years ago), you can load them onto commons and legitimately use them from there, if you follow the proper procedures. If you have any images like that, let me know and I can walk you through the process.
So let's say you find an image you like. When you click on the thumbnail of it in the search results, it opens up a page just for that image. It shows the image name across the top and has various copyright information beneath it, sometimes with a description.
NOTE: For this next part to make any sense, you need to be able to see the coding by reading this at the "edit" version of this page.
Okay, so now you need to copy the name of the file in its entirety. For example: "File:Rio de Janeiro from Corcovado mountain.jpg"
To insert the image into your article, you want to paste that filename at the part of the text where you want the image to appear. If you just put square brackets around it (i.e. ), as you see, the image will show up full-size, which will usually look bad since most of these image file sizes are huge. So you need to add some coding to the photo. Here's an example of a fairly complete string of coding for that image:
[[File:Rio de Janeiro from Corcovado mountain.jpg|thumb|250px|alt = Mountains and harbor border the heavily populated city of Rio de Janeiro|left|Paulo Francis was born in the Brazilian capital of Rio de Janeiro.]]
will show up as
There are several parts to this coding, separated by the upright bar | . The first is always the filename of the image. Next you want to indicate the image is a thumbnail ("thumb"), because otherwise a caption won't appear underneath the image. Then you can put the desired file size, just the numbers immediately followed by px. Next, include alt = followed by a description of what you're seeing in the image, because this part is provided for read-aloud software to read to blind computer users to know what kind of illustrations you're including in the piece. Finally, write out a caption to be included beneath the photo. That's all there is to it. It's really easy once you try it. Good luck and let me know if I can help you with anything else! Lemurbaby (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I can take a look at it, but am very busy right now (sorry it has taken so long to get back to you). It will be several days or even a week before I can review it. I will make a brief comment on the fair use image on the PR next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cerme, I've started reviewing your WP:GAN nomination, Landless Workers' Movement. My comments can be found at Talk:Landless Workers' Movement/GA1. I've no idea whether this nomination will pass or not, and that is quite unusual. Work will be needed to bring it up to standard and I've not sure whether that is going to be achievable during this review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leonel Brizola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Schlesinger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Cerme, I've gone ahead and reviewed the article you nominated at WP:GAN, you can find my comments at Talk:Landless Workers' Movement/GA2. I hope you find them helpful. Let me know if I can be of any help as you continue to improve the article. Thanks! Peace, delldot ∇. 17:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Leonel Brizola you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks!Cerme (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The article Leonel Brizola you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Leonel Brizola for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landless Workers' Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Burke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trajan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charax (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Landless Workers' Movement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The article Landless Workers' Movement you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Landless Workers' Movement for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi: I saw your message at User talk:ClueBot Commons. I don't know enough about the topic to judge the validity of the sources, but the editor who was blanking your expansion has been blocked. I suggest that if something like this happens again, you post at WP:AIV (intervention against vandalism) if it is one editor, as seems to have been the case here, or at WP:RFPP if it's several (page protection indicated). However, first you should attempt to talk to the person: do not immediately call it vandalism, be more precise in your edit summaries (in this case blanking/unexplained reversal of referenced expansion), and here you will find escalating templates to put on their user talk page: admins are reluctant to block someone who has not received a full set of warnings, but very often they will also be vandalising/blanking/making POV edits on other pages, so if everybody who reverts them adds a warning, they have fair notice that more than one editor objects, and if they don't stop, there is a clear trail for the admin to see. These procedures will help you make your case; and also help get someone to stop if they are simply confused or joking around. Hope this is helpful. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paulo Francis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much!Cerme (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The article Paulo Francis you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Paulo Francis for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warhawk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Cerme, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Olavo de Carvalho, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trajan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The article Trajan you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Trajan for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your use of citations. WCCasey (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digest. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aqueduct. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hadrian you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lower Pannonia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The article Hadrian you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hadrian for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
You're doing great work at the Hadrian article, but sometimes your sentences can run on for quite a while. Take a look at my recent edits and you'll notice I removed one sentence of yours. I wasn't quite sure what message you were trying to get across. Can you re-add it as a standalone sentence?--Tataryn (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Cerme -- I know you've been working hard to get Trajan into shape and address concerns I raised in my earlier comments. I've been watching your edits with interest. I feel a bit more work needs to be done, and I want to help you as much as I can.
1) Near the beginning of the section Trajan#The Correctores: Greek/Roman relations, you end a paragraph with this sentence:
There are a few things wrong with this sentence:
(a) You have "had to do mostly" twice, both here and in the next sentence:
I'm not sure yet, but I think it works best with the first sentence, and something else could be used for the second sentence (I'm still thinking about it).
(b) It's not clear whether "as a means of channeling ancient rivalries between neighboring cities" is referring to the curbing of overenthusiastic spending or or the actual spending. It's not clear who was trying to channel ancient rivalries, and it's not entirely clear what "channeling" means here. I think I mentioned these same concerns before, and you tried to address them, but you haven't succeeded in clearing these things up yet. If you would answer the questions I've just raised here, I will help you express it clearly.
(c) In the second sentence I quoted above, you write "competition between Greek cities and their ruling oligarchies". Perhaps to someone who is familiar with Roman history, this is clear, but to an average reader, this is not clear. What kind of competition can there be between a [Greek] city and its "ruling oligarchy", unless that ruling oligarchy was Roman? If it was Roman, then (1) what kind of competition was this, and (2) why do you introduce a Greek-Roman competition immediately after a sentence that mentions "ancient rivalries between neighboring cities"? Weren't those Greek cities?
It's all a little too vague. Corinne (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Intercity rivalry in the Greek East was mostly a competition betweeen the Greek oligarchies that ruled each city in behalf of Rome; at the same time, the common people also had a share in such rivalries (which envolved ruckus, brawls, hitting and killing between rival supporters at regional games, et coetera) and so one can say that it was not only rivalry between ruling cliques, but between entire cities as well.
That's what I meant to say in the two sentences. Naturally, I would be very pleased if you make both sentences easier for the general reader to understand. Thanks againCerme (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk}
21:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Cerme. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Leonel Brizola at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC) |
Hello, Cerme -- As you've probably seen, I have begun a copy-edit of Hadrian. I have a few questions (I might have to add a few later after I go back and look at what I did yesterday).
1) In references, I started to change "page" to "p." and "pages" to "pp.", but then I thought I'd better ask you whether you prefer the word written out. Let me know what you prefer and I'll make them all consistent.
2) In the second-to-last paragraph in Hadrian#Britannia and the West (122), I came across the following sentence:
The sentence is grammatically fine, but I thought maybe it should be made clear who was trying to buttress Hadrian's legitimacy. The way the sentence is worded now, it is not clear. One has to guess that it was Hadrian. It is possible that others had an interest in buttressing Hadrian's legitimacy. If these deifications were conscious moves by Hadrian to buttress his own legitimacy, wouldn't it make sense to word it something like this?
If you like the sentence but don't like the word "effort", perhaps "a stratagem" or "a move" would work instead. Of course a lot depends upon what is in the source, so I'll let you decide.
3) In the third paragraph in Hadrian#Purpose, the second sentence did not make sense. I made an intelligent guess and re-worded it to "[Hadrian] made recourse to...Turbo" (i.e., turned to Turbo for his help, used Turbo to accomplish something). If this is not correct, please let me know and the sentence can be changed. However, if I worded the sentence correctly, there is a bit of a problem with the cohesion of the rest of the paragraph. The subsequent sentences tell who Turbo was. Then we read that Turbo was "not competent to keep check on the Senate" (I think it should be "keep a check on the Senate", i.e., keep tabs on the Senate, keep the senators in line, but I'm going to ask someone about this. Rothorpe should it be "keep check on the Senate" or "keep a check on the Senate"?), then you explain why, and then you mention the secret police. Besides the fact that you made no connection between the statements about the secret police and what precedes it, you don't say anything about why Hadrian "made recourse to...Turbo" or whether Turbo succeeded in accomplishing anything, so the reader may wonder why you mentioned him. Corinne (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
4) The first few sentences of Hadrian#Africa, Parthia and Anatolia ; Antinous (123-124) are:
I've highlighted two sentences. I'm wondering whether the second one (the last sentence here) is necessary, given that the first highlighted sentence says, "On his journey east it is known that at some point he visited Cyrene". Whereas this sounds fairly certain, the second sentence ("might well have been") casts some doubt. Do you want that doubt there? Corinne (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
5) Toward the end of the last paragraph in Hadrian#Africa, Parthia and Anatolia; Antinous (123–124) is the following sentence:
I was stopped by the last phrase: "dazzling white marble with gold tread". I assumed that, rather than "tread", the word "thread" was meant, and I was about to change it when I wondered how gold thread (silk? cotton?) could be joined to marble. Can you read the source and see if you can find a bit more detail on this to explain the presence of "thread"? I mean, thread is not usually found by itself and not woven or sewn into something, so the phrase "marble and...thread" is odd. Here is some embroidery done in gold thread and a roll of thread:
– Corinne (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Corinne: I will be replying to you as soon as possible. Let me only say that, I my haste, I wrote the text "around" the existing versions and that amounted for repetitions, imprecisions and misspellings. I will have to take time to discuss the details. Please allow me a delay in offering you my take on what the final version should be. Ah-thanks a lot for your effort! Cerme (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly that your version is the best in the way of conveying the exact historical context. I will wait for Rothorpe's agreement before we make the required edit. Thanks a lot.Cerme (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cerme, Corinne, and Rothorpe. There is an unbalanced bracket in reference [1] shown below:
Hadrian was born Publius Aelius Hadrianus in either Italica[1]
References
Where should the closing paren go? PING me back. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk}
22:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk}
02:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Hi, Corinne and Checkingfax. The reference is confused: What I think is that the Spanish title of the article quoted is "Itálica: patria y [...] de Adriano". What follows between brackets, however, is a subtitle (31 textos historicos y argumentos [...]) i.e., 31 historical texts and arguments against the Life of Hadrian in Historia Augusta, 1.3, which states that Hadrian was born in Rome (textual quote: "Hadrian was born in Rome on the ninth day before the Kalends of February in the seventh consulship of Vespasian and the fifth of Titus").
The reference therefore is supposed to offer evidence to the alternate thesis that Hadrian's birth place was Italica in Spain. The following link to an academic Italian site, however, is dead. I believe the full reference , with title, is :
Alicia M. Canto, "Itálica, patria y ciudad natal de Adriano (31 textos históricos y argumentos contra Vita Hadr 1,3). (Eng. trans.: Alicia M. Canto, "Italica, Hadrian's patria and birth place (with 31 historical sources and arguments contrary to Vita Hadr, 1,3)". Patria is used in the Latin sense of more than a simple hometown, meaning that Hadrian was originally a citizen of Italica. Being an article originally in Spanish, I believe that Ms. Canto wants to support the thesis that Hadrian was somewhat of a Spaniard, something that goes well with modern patriotic pride about the important role of Southern Hispania in the politico-economic life of the Second Century Roman Empire.
The phrase "His father died in AD 86 when Hadrian was at the age of 10" is a loose quote from the Historia Augusta text, 1,4, that has got into the reference, I think, by mistake.
That's my opinion, but we should perhaps find a link to the original article.Cerme (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Cerme -- I hadn't looked at Trajan for a while, so I just took some time to look at your latest edits. I saw one sentence that needed fixing, and I decided to read the whole Alimenta section. I saw a few things I'd like to discuss with you, including one incomplete sentence. I'm going to copy the entire section here, and number the sentences for ease of discussion; I will also remove the reference numbers.
(1) Another important act was his formalisation of the alimenta, a welfare program that helped orphans and poor children throughout Italy. (2) It provided general funds, as well as food and subsidized education. (3) The program was supported initially by funds from the Dacian War, and then later by a combination of estate taxes and philanthropy. (4) In general terms, the scheme functioned by means of mortgages on Italian farms (fundi), through which registered landowners received a lump sum from the imperial treasure, being in return engaged to pay yearly a given proportion of the loan to the maintenance of the alimentary fund.
(5) Although the system is well documented in literary sources and contemporary epigraphy, its precise aims are controversial and have generated considerable dispute among modern scholars, especially about its actual aims and scope as a piece of welfare policy. (6) It is usually assumed that the program was intended to bolster citizen numbers in Italy, following the provisions of Augustus' moral legislation (Lex Julia) favoring procreation on moral grounds – something openly acknowledged by Pliny. (7) Nevertheless, as an aim this was in itself anachronistic, in that it saw the Roman Empire as a hegemony centering on a purely Italian manpower base. (8) This anachronistic stance is confirmed by Pliny, when he wrote that the recipients of the alimenta were supposed to people "the barracks and the tribes" as future soldiers and electors – two roles ill-fitted to the contemporary reality of a Mediterranean hegemony ruled by an autocracy. (9) The fact that the scheme was restricted to Italy points to the fact that it might be conceived as a form of political privilege accorded to the heartland of the Roman Empire. (10) According to the French historian Paul Petit, the alimenta should be seen as part of a set of measures aimed towards the economic recovery of Italy, such as the stricture laid down by Trajan ordering all senators, even when from the provinces, to have at least a third of their landed estates in Italian territory.
(11) Besides, the fact that the scheme was subsidized by means of interest payments on loans made by landowners – and mostly large ones, assumed to be more reliable debtors[155] – actually restricted it to a small percentage of potential welfare recipients (Paul Veyne has assumed that, in the city of Veleia, only one child out of ten was an actual beneficiary). (12) Therefore, the idea, advanced by Moses I. Finley, that the whole scheme was at most a form of random charity, a mere imperial benevolence. (13) Besides, the fact that these charities seem to have been backed by loans to great landowners only (in Veleia, only some 17 square kilometers were mortgaged) – restricted the extent of the scheme further. (14) It seems that the mortgage scheme was simply a way of making local notables participate, albeit in a lesser role, in imperial benevolence. (15) It is possible that the scheme was, to some extent, a forced loan, something that tied unwilling landowners to the imperial fisc in order to make then supply some funds to civic expenses. (16) On the other hand, a senator such as Pliny had endowed his city of Comum a perpetual right to an annual charge (vectigal) of thirty thousand sestertii on one of his estates, allowing for the maintenance of his, Pliny's, private charitable foundation. (17) The fact that the alimenta scheme was developed during and after the Dacian Wars, and followed two distributions of money to the population of Rome (congiaria) during Dacian triumphs, points towards the purely charitable character of the scheme.
(I will number my points, but note that these numbers do not necessarily correspond to the sentence numbers.)
1) In the first paragraph, you will see that the word "fund", or "funds", and fundi, appear four times. In sentences (2) and (3), you will see that the word "funds" appears twice. I'm wondering if you could remove one of those two, to reduce the total to three instances. Perhaps, instead of "It provided general funds", you could substitute "It provided general support", which would tie pretty well with the previous sentence. Besides, "It provided general funds" is a bit vague.
2) Sentence (7) starts, "Nevertheless, as an aim this was in itself anachronistic". The previous sentence mentioned several things, so the reader has to figure out exactly what is meant by "this". It would be clearer if you added a noun after "this" to make it really clear to what this sentence refers. You might consider re-wording the sentence to: "Nevertheless, this aim was actually anachronistic".
The second half of sentence (7) is:
I see two separate problems with this:
(a) the "it" near the beginning apparently refers to the anachronistic "aim" in the first part of the sentence. However, if you think about it, an aim cannot see anything. You could change it to something like, "in that it was based on a view of the Roman Empire as..."
(b) Checkingfax recently provided statistics showing that 25% of WP's readers are children aged 10 to 18 (Did I recall the numbers right, Checkingfax?). I think this sentence, particularly the second half, is overly academic. I wouldn't use "hegemony" at all, but if you have to, I would link it to Wiktionary with [[Wikt:hegemony|hegemony]], and "centering on a purely Italian manpower base" will go right over many readers' heads. Perhaps you could re-word the sentence so it will make sense to the average reader.
3) Likewise with the last part of sentence (8).
4) In sentence (10), it might not be obvious to many readers how Trajan's stricture would have helped with the economic recovery of Italy. Perhaps you could add a few words to make the connection clear. How would requiring senators to have at least a third of their landed estates within Italy help the economy? By providing a living to poor citizens? By stimulating the markets with the sale of crops and the purchase of supplies and equipment for the senators' farms and homes? Something like that.
5) Sentence (12) is an incomplete sentence.
6) Sentences (11) and (13) both start with "Besides, the fact that". Stylistically, it would be best not to repeat the same phrase twice in such close proximity. However, there is also another problem with the entire phrase. Usually, the phrase is used in a sentence like this: "Besides the fact that X, Y....," so when I read this the first time, thinking it was really this construction, I was thrown off and had to re-read the sentence. You can avoid this by changing, "Besides" to "In addition", or "Also,".
7) In sentence (13) you have "the extent", and in sentence (15) you have "to a certain extent". It would be good to change one of these. You might even simply remove "the extent" in sentence (13); I think it makes sense with no phrase there: "restricted the scheme even further".
8) Sentence (16) starts, "On the other hand, a senator such as Pliny". When you use a construction like this, what follows really needs to be either hypothetical or a general example, possibly with "could" or "might": "On the other hand, a senator such as Pliny could...". However, what you have followed it with is real information about what Pliny really did, so it's not hypothetical and it's not really an example, or at least you haven't presented it as an example. You could word the first sentence as an example, as I have just shown, with "could", and then follow it with a statement about what Pliny actually did. The way you have it now, you go right into real information about Pliny in the first sentence. If you want to leave it that way, I suggest leaving out "A senator such as" before "Pliny" (and of course do not use "could"). Then it will all be factual information about Pliny.
9) In sentence (15), you use the word "fisc". I had never even seen or heard this word. Are you sure it is a word? If so, I suggest either linking it to the Wiktionary definition or using a different word. – Corinne (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
10) In sentence (16), you describe Pliny's own personal "scheme". However, it is not real clear why you include this here. How is it related to Trajan's alimenta scheme? Pliny would not have been subject to Trajan's "stricture" and the forced loans, would he? Can you try to add a few words to explain the reason why you included this information about Pliny? If he was not subject to Trajan's stricture and the loans, you could say that: "Though not subject to Trajan's stricture or the forced loans, Pliny..." or just "Though not subject to the forced loans, Pliny..." Also, it is not completely clear whether Pliny's "scheme" was mainly designed to help support his own estates, and any charitable outcome was merely incidental, or what. Are you presenting this as an example of an alternate form of charitable funding for the poor citizens of Italy? All this ought to be made clear, not necessarily with the addition of a lot more words, just the right few words. – Corinne (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk}
06:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)As to the use of the word "fisc" - the fisc, here, is the imperial treasury (Latin fiscus) as opposed to the "public", Senate-managed old Republican treasure, the aerarium. I have found fisc in the Merriam-Webster [4], as "State treasury", but it's undoubtely an obsolete word in English. As my mother language is a Romance one, I typed "fisc" unwittlingly. Sorry for that. Perhaps using "Imperial treasury" instead would do.Cerme (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The article Paulo Francis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Paulo Francis for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Cerme. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Cerme -- I saw your recent edits to Hadrian, and I hope you don't mind that I made a few copy-edits. I'd like to ask you a few things about these sentences, which appear at the end of the third paragraph in Hadrian#Public service:
In the first sentence, I removed "If", because the sentence was ungrammatical; the conditional sentence was incomplete, and "if" did not seem necessary. (Feel free to re-word it if you think a conditional sentence is needed there.) However, it seems as if the phrase the follows the en-dash – "a sign that Trajan wanted to have him out of his way" – should apply only to "departed early from both Dacian campaigns", not to the first clause. If this is true, there really should be a contrast between the two clauses of that first sentence (the first event was a good thing for Hadrian, and the second event was not), and right now there is no contrast. Perhaps the sentence should be ended after "customary" and a new sentence begun. ("However, he also departed early..."). If not, then I really don't understand this sentence.
Then, in the next sentence that begins "Nevertheless", we go back to a positive turn of events. In this sentence is the phrase "at about the same time". However, the first sentence seems to refer to two different times, so the phrase "at about the same time" is ambiguous. What time? If the first sentence is divided into two sentences as I suggested, it might be less ambiguous since the time phrase would refer to the second sentence and not the first.
Also, just in reading the next few paragraphs, I noticed that "at this time" is used quite often. Perhaps you should do a search with the "Find" tool for "at this time" and "at the same time", and see if the phrases are overused throughout the article. You may find a few that could be removed or changed to a different indication of time. – Corinne (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Corinne, I just rewrote the entire paragraph in order to convey what I found on the sources. In fact, I think that we had here a perverse situation in which Trajan allowed his protegé to hope for the succession but never allowed such hopes to become actual fact - something described keenly by the Historia Augusta writer.Cerme (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Cerme (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. Place any further information here. Cerme (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Issues resolved. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
...for your thanks for my small edit at Hadrian. Kudos for taking on the topic, and with such care and committment! I'll look in from time to time. Haploidavey (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Hadrian has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
In case you haven't seen already, I have begun to review your article Hadrian for Good Article status at Talk:Hadrian/GA3.
Sorry about the late notification here: I expected the bot to do it, but it looks like it hasn't.
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I'm making corrections to the article according to your proposed changes, on a one-to-one basis. That will, naturally enough, take some time.Cerme (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello Cerme! Thank you so much for your note at my talk page. I've just read through the edit history at the Hadrian article, and seem to have intended exactly the same removal, some weeks back -- but promptly forgot to carry it out. I'd also like to express my appreciation of the gargantuan amount of careful work you've done in providing well-sourced content; almost all the "heavy lifting" has, so far as I can tell, already been done (and by you). I've not abandoned editing there; I'm just rather stuck regarding the optimal organisation of content. In such circumstances, I usually let things brew for a week or two; it sometimes helps me see a way forward. You know the material far better than I, and any further suggestions from you would be most welcome. Best wishes, Haploidavey (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Cerme. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Cerme. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The article Hadrian you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hadrian for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Cerme (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Trajan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trajan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ??????? -- ??????? (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The article Trajan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Trajan for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)