User talk:CutieyKing

Hi, please don't tick the "minor edit" box when you make an edit. A minor edit is for fixing typos or broken links. Thanks. T8612 (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok! Did not know! Sorry for the inconvenience.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Roman quaestors, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lucius Caecilius Metellus and Gnaeus Servilius Caepio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kessen II, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Liu Zhang and Battle of Tong Pass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I noticed in a lot of your articles you cite things by putting just the author and page numbers between reference brackets. Even if the author only wrote one book, it's more helpful to readers if you include the title of the book you're citing. Have you considered using a citation template? They look overwhelming (especially in source mode), but they're basically just short forms. The citation is then generated for you. I usually pull up citation templates by clicking the "cite" button in the editing toolbar. It then asks if I want to paste in an ISBN (and I do), but if you want to create them manually, you can click the "manual" button and use the book template. You've done such wonderful work so far, so please help others get more out of your work by adding more information to your citations. Once you write 25 articles, you should consider applying for autopatrolled so your articles are automatically indexed by google. Thank you! Mcampany (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the comment and review! The problem i have had with the citation template is that in regards to ancient authors the "options" given in the menu simply is not correct. While i previously used this for example Broughton's "Magistrates of the Roman Republic" i got the feeling from other editors that this was not the preferred way (generally the citation was changed to a shorter form then the one provided by the long-form in the template). As the primary source i am working with right now is Broughton, the secondary (aka his and the true primary sources) are provided to me by a simple "Liv 4.23.6" etc. Therefor, i guess i have been lazy and simply added this together with my reference to Broughton. But, i will of course, take your advice, and try to provide the full names of the books by these ancient authors when they can be provided. Thanks again for noticing my articles and for helping me become a better editor! CutieyKing (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, that makes sense. I wonder if citing the Broughton book directly (even though it's secondary) would be the best choice here since it would lead readers back to the primary sources that he cites. That's what I hope for when I cite secondary and tertiary sources, anyways. However, I'll admit that I don't know much about writing articles on ancient history, so I'm not entirely sure how to handle this, but I wonder if someone at the Classical Greece and Rome wikiproject would know. It might be a good idea to ask. Take care! Mcampany (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I’ve just reviewed Marcus Manlius Capitolinus Vulso. Thanks for creating this and happy editing! Mccapra (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Thank you for creating Appius Claudius Crassus (consular tribune 424 BC) . When you create an article like this with a "disambiguated" title, please make sure that the reader can find it from the basic name (ie Appius Claudius Crassus ), by adding or expanding a hatnote, or adding the article to a disambiguation page. This helps the reader to find your article, and also reduces the chance of a future careless editor creating a duplicate article with a slightly different disambiguator. I've fixed this one. Thanks, and Happy Editing. PamD 17:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CutieyKing, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Thanks!! I have no idea on the technical side of things here, but i added the two scripts you said! Il read up on how to add the wikiprojects! Kind regards! CutieyKing (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think the article is enough for a GA. The main reason is that you only use a few modern sources. In fact, I only see Broughton, which is a good source, but Broughton does not discuss the details given by Livy and Diodorus. These details are largely invented, with only a remnant of historical truth. Livy and Diodorus had very little historical facts to work with and elaborated a lot to write a coherent narrative. For the period of the fifth century BC, good sources are RM Ogilvie, Commentary on Livy 1-5; Gary Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome; and TJ Cornell, The beginnings of Rome. See an example of an article using these sources here. T8612 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you read German, you can also use the RE. Several articles have been added to Wikisource (it's difficult to search in there, look for the nomen (eg. Valerius, not Potitus)). This Valerius is not yet on Wikisource, but here is a scan of the RE here. As you can see there is a lot to say. T8612 (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather say that this fits into something other then a biographical article were a discussion is needed if we should have a disclaimer/discussion on every single biographical article on the reliability of ancient sources, which is a discussion that is way larger then the scope of any bio (it would most likely take away from the bio and be of secondary use to any potential reader of the bio) but should probably be linked to these ancient bios. I of course agree with you in regards to modern sources, but finding new ones that cover the topic in a relevant way is hard for this early period. Going deeply into a discussion in regards to gens, family or a broader discussion on the early republic all seem irrelevant and covered by other articles, which should (and is), linked to by this article. I could of course delve a bit into at the literature i have at home, or try to find some new in the library, which both adds and dosen't simply repeat what Broughton and Livy has already provided. I would also like to add this from the GAN description: "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.". To back up my reasoning here. CutieyKing (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that Good Articles must use reliable sources, and ancient sources like Livy and Diodoros are not RS. See WP:PRIMARY. There is no problem about repeating the same information in many articles. Wikipedia is not limited by paper space like a printed encyclopaedia. T8612 (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might be arguing for the sake of arguing here but "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." which i would say is what this article represents.

But on another point i have of course taken in your critique and i can see your side to this, while i sadly only had Renshaw in English at home which could add anything to the discussion, i added a new section to the article with both Renshaw and Broughton to give lite to the sources and their reliability. I have also ordered a few books to my library, so hopefully i can add a few more voices to that section in the coming days. Hopefuly a few of the books you recommended, and a few i found by searching, can be used to add more secondary sources to the article itself, increasing the quality of the "analysis" and shedding new light on our consular tribune. Kind regards CutieyKing (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. Sorry for seeming rude or passive aggressive, i am thankful for your feedback and helping me improve my article(s)[reply]

Just checking back on this, what is your opinion of the article at this point? Did get a hold of Ogilvie which was quite a book, took some time to get used to how to navigate it! CutieyKing (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have added this section on the literary tradition, as it doesn't mention Potitus at all. You can address the problem in a much shorter way, like in the lede by saying "Due to a lack of sources, little is known about his life." One important thing discussed in Ogilvie is the return to the consulate after a long series of consular tribuneships. Here are the books I mentioned above in pdf, while they don't talk of Potitus, they give a lot of information on the general context of these years, what is true and false in Livy etc. If you can, try also to get a copy of Stephen Oakley's Commentary on Livy book 6, it's the best modern source for the early period of the Republic. T8612 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lucius Valerius Potitus (consul 393 BC) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Extraordinary Writ -- Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lucius Valerius Potitus (consul 393 BC) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Lucius Valerius Potitus (consul 393 BC) 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 Extraordinary Writ -- Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]