User talk:InformationvsInjustice

I deeply value WP as one of the most important assets on the web. I recently decided to up my game and increase my involvement. I have also committed to being a better member of the community and that means adhering to the standards that ensure that it remains an asset.

As I've become more familiar with those standards, and specifically, with COI and NPOV, I realized that I failed to follow them at times in the past. In particular, I used my own external content as an authority and I created content/edited w/out revealing (non-paid) COI's. I am now going about the process of undoing those edits. I have flagged the removed edits with the following: [[User talk:InformationvsInjustice#My past WP:PG violations]]Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recently encountered the term "Sock puppet". In the above spirit of openness, I must disclose that this account was originally created as a sock puppet to my original user account: JoeHubris. I created this account in order to cite my own online content in edits. All of those early edits have been removed and flagged as above. This has been my only account since 2012. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cinematic television is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinematic television until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Sandstein  04:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Breaking Bad, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Quantum World Splitter has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see Crater Illusion was your first contribution in a long while. Welcome back! I started a couple of discussions on the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crater Illusion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Convex and Concave. 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) 12:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horatii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triplet. 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) 10:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think it was in this edit of yours that we suddenly had hundreds of links to the new dab page to disambiguate. Care to join us in that project? (I'm not complaining about your edit—I feel your pain!) I'm serious—as someone clearly knowledgeable in this subject matter, you would do a far better job of disambiguating links than your average (cough) joe or jane. You could work from this list, which uses the DabSolver tool to make the job a little quicker. Are you game? Ping me if you like. — Gorthian (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gorthian, I would be glad to help, mind you, I don't know how much time I can dedicate to this, however, is there a bot, where by you can change links on multiple pages by criteria? Because that would make it easy. Let me come clean: I totally saw this coming. It's rooted in whoever set up that original page. They didn't understand that they were two, distinct movements and then linked all the congressmen who used that ticket. sigh...InformationvsInjustice (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's a simple way to do it, just direct them by state.InformationvsInjustice (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, kudos for you for untangling all that! Unfortunately, there's no bot; it's all done by human judgement. Dab solver is pretty good, though: you can see a good chunk of the page and get some context. DisamAssist can be fast, but it's hard to see much of the article you're fixing, so I use it less.

Go by state, eh? I'll get a list of north/south states to keep handy; some of those along the Mason-Dixon Line confound me. Thanks for the tip! — Gorthian (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Info ob injuria 19:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Here's to an intelligent split and edit of Opposition Party (United States) and all the subsequent thoughtful link disambiguations. — Gorthian (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, InformationvsInjustice. I was interested to see your post on Talk:Romulus and Remus, and typed a reply, but when I went to post it, I found you had already blanked yours. I admit I don't understand why, because it's important information — copyright violation (which this was, not merely plagiarism) in articles is taken seriously, and must be removed. I don't have access to the book itself, but I found the passage you quote via Google books.[1] (Please note that other people can't necessarily see what I see in Google books — it varies depending on your location, and probably other things as well, which is the reason Google books is not a good source to refer to.) Since you say "this passage, as well as others", the best thing would be if you removed all passages in the article that come from the book, with reference to the book and the page. I'm assuming you do have access to the book..? Or, if you're doubtful about how to do that, could you please copy the relevant passages for me here, with page references, and I'll remove them? Bishonen | talk 00:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me so soon. I believe that the book may in fact have plagiarized the article, and not the other way around. I thought I might have jumped the gun. Frankly, despite a modest run at the copyright/plagiarism guidelines I was not certain whether or not it was. The book is entitled: The Esoteric Codex: Demigods of Classical Mythology by Brian Reineking.

The portions in question are:

The legend as a whole encapsulates Rome's ideas of itself, its origins and moral values. For modern scholarship, it remains one of the most complex and problematic of all foundation myths, particularly in the manner of Remus's death. Ancient historians had no doubt that Romulus gave his name to the city. Most modern historians believe his name a back-formation from the name Rome; the basis for Remus's name and role remain subjects of ancient and modern speculation. The myth was fully developed into something like an "official", chronological version in the Late Republican and early Imperial era; Roman historians dated the city's foundation to between 758 and 728 BC, and Plutarch reckoned the twins' birth year as 771 BC. A tradition that gave Romulus a distant ancestor in the semi-divine Trojan prince Aeneas was further embellished, and Romulus was made the direct ancestor of Rome's first Imperial dynasty. Possible historical bases for the broad mythological narrative remain unclear and disputed.[3] The image of the she-wolf suckling the divinely fathered twins became an iconic representation of the city and its founding legend, making Romulus and Remus preeminent among the feral children of ancient mythography.--From the article's lead section.

And the entire "Legend in ancient sources" section.

Let me know how I can help.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION: The entire lead of the "Legend in ancient sources.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to reply on Bishonen's talk page. It's fine here, but you might want to look at my note there at User talk:Bishonen #Plagiarism. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was popping by anyway, in response to your note at my talk. You did the right thing here; though as it happens, the passages in question are definitely Wikipedia's (they're among the few things of yesteryear I still remember writing). Almost all such online copies of Wikipedia articles contain some kind of clue of origin - they're usually cut copied and pasted, with minimal further editing; so you'll find things like "External Links" at the end of pages (and of course, the links are completely dead.) I like to mildly hassle these people, and will sometimes leave a sarcastic note on the "review" page for the "book" - almost all GNU-re-publishers have such a page. By the way, all Wikipedia articles can be republished for profit, or given away for free, by anyone. Legally, certain terms and conditions apply even to GNU material, but one could spend a lifetime pursuing infractions. They're absolutely rife. I can't imagine who buys them. Maybe they're just click-bait.

Anyway, I thought you might find "Earwig's copyvio detector" useful: see [2]. I'll get back to you on the rewrite, under a different section, some time today (I hope). Haploidavey (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:OUP#Apply. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not responding to your note at my talk - your message at G&R sums up my own difficulties, past and present, in even thinking about the topic. I was waiting to see how things went for you... whatever happens, this needs input, and I'll give mine (fwiw) at the "rewrite" talk-page asap. You've done a lot of work on this, and for that, I tip my hat to you. One thing's for sure - we can't editorially disentangle the matter(s) by editorial selection or analysis of "primary"(??) sources. We have to use modern, secondary scholarship. Here's hoping. Haploidavey (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, before bed; have you applied for JSTOR access? Essential for this subject matter, and there's quite a waiting list. Haploidavey (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you'll find this of use - and, I should add, you most likely know of it already - but it's at least interesting, and probably relevant to your enormous current undertakings. Festus might be an early source for the claim that Romulus named the city after himself - your Latin seems infinitely better than mine, but (as far as I can make out), this is claimed sub verba the very brief entry for "Romam" (326L) - you'll need to scroll up a page or two to p.780 - sorry for that! It might be a common supposition, or a piece of typically learned (and probably mistaken) Roman etymologising. The linkled work is actually Paulus' late Roman epitome of Festus' epitome of Flaccus (epitomes ad infinitum?) but it's hugely important in the scholarship and very frequently cited (crtitically, one hopes) by most modern scholarship on early Rome. I'll try to track down more on this claim and its prevalence/provenance. I'm fairly sure Wiseman's Remus cites the same Romam entry but I seem to have mislaid my paper copy. Probably lent it out, unwisemanly. Haploidavey (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've had some really constructive feedback at the G&R page, from an exceptionaly fine editor. That's good to see - hardly any of the G&R participants seem to look in at the project page these days, if the viewing statistics are anything to go by. Haploidavey (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's I who should thank you. You can be sure it'll be mauled about, but I have to say (off-page, as it were) that you've done extraordinary work in knocking all that carnage into two useful articles. Sure, there's a lot to be done, but now nobody needs to flounder through, and then inevitably give up because the whole thing's an insoluble and overcomplicated mash-up of this, that and the other. Haploidavey (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is the first article I've created "the right way". Years ago, I created an article on "Cinematic Television". The work I did on it was sound, but I didn't really know (care?) what the community standards were and so it ran into trouble. I didn't seek out any help. No projects, no talk pages, nothing. I didn't use my sandbox. I just threw it up there live. I didn't submit it for assessment, either. I then proceeded to link to it from all over the place. Again, something I didn't know was not okay. It got deleted :-) The whole thing made me unnecessarily gun-shy.

Even though I was still nervous replacing the entire old article, I felt okay about it. You sir, are a big reason. Please feel free to involve me in anything to which you feel I could contribute. With your leave, I will do the same. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It got deleted"... even typing that hurts. Anyway, you're very kind. Do pop up anywherever and anywhenever you think useful. And I'll do the same. :-) Haploidavey (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure! Haploidavey (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi, Thanks for contributing! I have done a couple of articles about living persons before, however, I am trying to be more conscientious and a better member of the WP community. This is an article about the artist Henk Pander. He meets WP:N WP:V criteria. I would appreciate any general feedback regarding such an article.

I do have a specific concern:

Is there a blanket ban on creating an article on a subject to whom you are known personally? I know Mr. Pander, although I have not seen him for many years, he is a friend of my family. I feel confident I can comply with NPOV. I am an experienced editor and I am a professional writer. Once completed, I will tag the article for W:BLP assessment.

Thanks again.

Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no blanket ban, but please make sure you have read and understood the Conflict of interest rules. I also highly suggest you use the Article Wizard to create your draft, so that it can be reviewed by experienced editors after submission. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, there is no such ban, if you are careful. Read WP:COI and WP:PSCOI, be open about your connection with the subject, and get someone else to review your article, either by creating a draft via WP:Articles for creation or by asking for comments at an appropriate WikiProject, if there is one, or at a noticeboard like WP:BLP/N or WP:COI/N. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. I will use the Wizard, that's a great resource.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with these edits being "fixes", as in each instance they complicate rather than simplify the language, introduce unnecessary details, confuse events, and, as I've said twice already, inappropriately use the present tense to describe past events, creating an inconsistent narrative that I think it unencyclopedic. I'll go through them one at a time:

• In the first sentence, the important fact is their relationship to Numitor, since he was rightfully king. It's only necessary to state one relationship at a time.
• Numitor isn't described as the "former" king in either Livy or Dionysius; while it's possible that he had ruled for some period of time before being deposed by Amulius, both sources simply say that Amulius seized the throne and drove out Numitor. He may or may not have been a "former" king, but he was certainly the "rightful" one.
• The descent of Romulus and Remus from Aeneas and from Latinus is relevant, but not necessary to state in a very brief summary. It's a detail to a detail several steps removed from their royal birth, and part of a longer narrative, which is fully covered in the Romulus and Remus article. Added to this, the wording implies that Aeneas married Latinus, rather than the king's daughter (and it's not clear from the source material whether Lavinia or Creüsa was the ancestress of the Alban Kings; another detail that's really not necessary in a brief summary). Describing a person as "mythical" comes with the added baggage of implying that he did not exist, which is a dispute that this article needs to avoid. I've been very careful about my use of the words "myth" and "legend" in this article just in order to avoid that connotation. Besides which, Latinus was the king of Latium, not Latia. And neither Livy nor Dionysius say that he founded his kingdom.
• It's not necessary to add "before the twins' birth" or say that Numitor's son or sons were murdered after he was deposed, if you simply leave the elements of the narrative in order. These would be naturally assumed in a concise narrative; it would be even more apparent without the digression into the distant ancestry of Romulus and Remus, a detail that could easily be footnoted, if it has to be included here (but it really doesn't, as it's not particularly relevant to the account of their miraculous birth; the story would be the same without it).
• There is no justification for a "citation needed" tag for a footnote to an adequately cited statement, which additionally identifies the source material beyond any dispute. It's in Livy, the exact citation follows, and we don't need a secondary source to state that it's at that point in Livy.
• We can assume that Amulius didn't order the infants thrown into the Tiber before they were born. It's not necessary to say that they were born first.
• The detail that the Tiber had recently flooded is important, because that's why the servants were unable to reach the river, and left the basket elsewhere. Amulius didn't order them thrown into the rain-swollen Tiber; he ordered them thrown into the Tiber. The fact that it was rain-swollen was why it flooded, and the fact that it flooded was why the ground was marshy, making it impossible to reach the river itself. They weren't left on the riverbank in either Livy or Dionysius.
• Dionysius doesn't mention the fig tree, but it was an important detail, not only in Livy, but in most accounts of the legend. There's no reason to delete it here just because it doesn't occur in Dionysius; that's not NPOV.
• There's no reason to begin the next paragraph with, "in the well-known episode that followed". It's surplus verbiage in a place where we're trying to summarize events. It's a given that whatever is described next "followed" whatever previously happened; there's no reason to describe it as an "episode", and it's not relevant to the narrative whether it's "well-known". It may be included because it's well-known, but we don't need to explain that each part of the narrative is well-known in order to justify including it. That's assumed.
• Splitting a relatively straightforward sentence into three here doesn't make it simpler. It makes it more verbose for no apparent reason. Also, the present tense is not appropriate here; all of the events of the narrative are described in the past tense, as is normally done.
• Saying that Romulus and Remus learned of their origin "after they become involved in a conflict between the followers of the king and those of their grandfather" adds an unnecessary and confusing detail. The important fact is that they learned of it; the reason why they learned of it is a detail to a detail; but saying that there was a conflict and that they were involved in it is so vague that you have to provide additional information in order to make sense of it. With this language it becomes necessary to say what the conflict was, and how they were involved, and why this would lead to the revelation of their true origin. If you aren't going to do that, then this is just excess verbiage. And it's not necessary to the narrative, any more than stories of attacking bandits and giving the loot to the herdsmen is. This is supposed to be a brief summary; there's no reason to lengthen it with unnecessary details that just call for more information to make sense of them.
• Romulus and Remus didn't overthrow and kill Amulius; they killed him. It wasn't necessary to do anything else to him.
• No reason to delete a transitional adverb, "then" from the sentence moving from restoring Numitor to the throne to founding a new city. It's helpful to have that, rather than simply shifting from one deed to another.
• The brothers were quarreling over the omens; the vultures were omens. It's not necessary to introduce all this imprecise and complicating language ("the conflict escalates") or go into detail about why they didn't manage to resolve the dispute before it became violent. And again, the present tense, here used twice, is not appropriate for this narrative.
• You've footnoted the detail of the wall, although apparently it's common to Livy, Dionysius, and Plutarch; it's an important detail and doesn't need to be a footnote.
• The uncertainty about who killed Remus was clearly worded before. While Dionysius mentions a specific culprit as one of several versions of events, it's not the only one, and the way it's worded now implies that a specific person was responsible, while other versions and Livy simply say that Remus was killed (if Romulus didn't kill him himself, which is the first of multiple versions reported by Livy, but not by Dionysius). The reworded passage emphasizes Romulus as fratricide, and indicates a specific person as the alternative culprit, while the previous wording allows for one or more versions, and concludes with the possibility of fratricide, which is suitable as the most dramatic, but not necessarily preferred version.
• The death of Faustulus in one version related by Dionysius is not particularly relevant to this summary.
• "Now the sole leader of the colonists, Romulus" → "With the dispute over, Romulus" is a less interesting transition, emphasizing "the dispute" (a bit bland as a description of a battle in which Remus died), instead of the result.
• The Parilia was a relatively important detail, at least to Dionysius; but more importantly it gives the date of the founding of Rome, which is hardly unimportant to the Romulus myth. There's no reason to footnote it.
• Dionysius doesn't say that Romulus received Numitor's help in addressing the people. He says that he followed Numitor's advice on how to address them.
• The previous wording emphasizes the result of Romulus praying, sacrificing, and receiving omens; the reworded sentence reverses the order of events and removes that emphasis.

While I am perfectly happy to resolve imprecise or misleading language, improve or streamlining when necessary, I feel that the former language in each case was clearer, more accurate, and preferable to the current wording. P Aculeius (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: You rock. It gives me heart to see people so involved.

• Numitor isn't described as the "former" king in either Livy or Dionysius; while it's possible that he had ruled for some period of time before being deposed by Amulius, both sources simply say that Amulius seized the throne and drove out Numitor. He may or may not have been a "former" king, but he was certainly the "rightful" one.

Plutarch, Life of Romulus Ch.3 p.2: "Amulius divided the whole inheritance into two parts, setting the treasures and gold which had been brought from Troy over against the kingdom, and Numitor chose the kingdom. Amulius, then, in possession of the treasure, and made more powerful by it than Numitor, easily took the kingdom away from his brother"

Dionysius, History I 85: "When Numitor, upon the death of Amulius, had resumed his rule and had spent a little time in restoring the city from its late disorder to its former orderly state, he presently thought of providing an independent rule for the youths by founding another city."

While the language in Livy is more ambiguous, these passages state clearly that he was king and that Amulius deposed him.

"Took the kingdom away" doesn't necessarily mean that Numitor ever had possession of it, so Plutarch is ambiguous; Livy is ambiguous; and the argument that Dionysius isn't ambiguous hangs entirely on the word "resumed" (in a translation, I add) occurring removed a considerable length from the story of Amulius usurping the throne. So while we might like to assume that this is the correct interpretation, there remains considerable ambiguity; hence my choice of "rightful" as an adjective to describe Numitor's kingship, instead of "former". It avoids the problem of ambiguity entirely, and further indicates that Numitor should have been king, instead of Amulius, which is a useful shade of meaning in this context. On a subsequent occasion you insist that a standard part of the story should be omitted, or at best limited to a footnote, because not every version mentioned by the authors involves it, rendering it ambiguous. Yet you inconsistently argue that this ambiguity can be ignored or left in a footnote, when all that is necessary to avoid the problem is to reword the sentence... or in fact, restore the previous wording.

• Describing a person as "mythical" comes with the added baggage of implying that he did not exist, which is a dispute that this article needs to avoid. I've been very careful about my use of the words "myth" and "legend" in this article just in order to avoid that connotation.

I'm not sure if I understand this. This is a myth. It is a legend. A reader should not be mislead into thinking this is an historical record. He's as much a myth as Zeus, or Hercules, or Amenominakanushi.

In English, the word "myth" is widely understood to mean something other than its technical meaning (a traditional story told for a specific purpose): it is understood to mean "fictional, imaginary, false". To a lesser degree that connotation also attaches to the word "legend", although it is more widely understood that real persons and events can be described as "legends" or "legendary". A neutral point of view in relating the subjects of mythology/ancient history requires that one not use language suggesting that a particular story is false or person fictional, unless the story itself or the source being cited so states. As editors we do not imply that some gods are real and others false, that legendary figures or mythical beasts are fictional or imaginary. While this does not preclude the careful use of the words "myth" and "legend" to refer to specific things, it means that one must be extremely careful not to create ambiguity that would lead people to infer that we are describing whatever it is as false. The persons concerned with the Romulus myth may or may not have existed, in some form or other; so it is inappropriate to describe them as mythical.

This is an important point, fundamental to development of the Romulus article. If we assume Romulus as entirely fictional, belonging only in an article on Roman myth, then he has no place in what's generally considered history, except as symbol, or cult figure, or sterotype. He might have profound significance, but no substance, and no "acts" or "real incidents" could be attached to him as a mooted King of Rome. But if he were removed on the grounds that he's likely a composite figure, or fictional, or mythic, we'd be left with an exactly Romulus-shaped hole; we can call it "Romulus". Some important elements of his life and rule are inevitably fiction (or more accurately, likely part of a mythos or tradition - for which, see Romulus and Remus) but we don't actually know which, and we mostly we don't need to know which. In the Romulus article, we should play it straight; the sources say what sources say. A clear narrative is preferable, one with minimal circumstantial details, cross-questioning between sources, commentary and complexity en route. Once that's done, we've recourse to the commentary, critiques and analysis of modern secondary sources. Haploidavey (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no justification for a "citation needed" tag for a footnote to an adequately cited statement, which additionally identifies the source material beyond any dispute. It's in Livy, the exact citation follows, and we don't need a secondary source to state that it's at that point in Livy.

I added the CN because you have asserted a couple of times here that he had more than one son. I went back and read Livy and I see this: "murders his brother's male issue"--Ch.I p.3. That could be either singular or plural. Whereas the other two definitely only mention a single son. So, please point the article at a source that explicitly says "sons" or "2 sons" or something.

Your translation says, "male issue", mine says "male children". You could argue that your translation is ambiguous, but the fact that "male issue" is given instead of "son" implies that there were either multiple sons, or at least one son with sons of his own. That's the natural interpretation in your translation; mine is simply clearer. In either cases, no citation is needed; anyone checking the cited source will see what it says.

the present tense is not appropriate here; all of the events of the narrative are described in the past tense, as is normally done.

Thanks for catching that. I have a bad habit of falling back into the present tense.

• Saying that Romulus and Remus learned of their origin "after they become involved in a conflict between the followers of the king and those of their grandfather" adds an unnecessary and confusing detail.

The important fact is that they learned of it; the reason why they learned of it is a detail to a detail; but saying that there was a conflict and that they were involved in it is so vague that you have to provide additional information in order to make sense of it.

The story of this conflict is a major part of the three narratives. It warrants details.

Not unless you're going to add them, which frankly isn't necessary, any more than other incidents of their childhood and adolescence. Describing how they learned of their origin is a detail that takes a great deal of space to fill in; several sentences in all probability. It's not like adding two or three words to an existing sentence; doing it properly would give undue weight to a relatively unimportant detail in what's intended to be a very brief summary. Two paragraphs is all it was; you could write a whole paragraph just summarizing how they learned of their origin, but you don't need to. It's not helpful to the summary of the myth, because everything else reads the same without it.

• The brothers were quarreling over the omens; the vultures were omens. It's not necessary to introduce all this imprecise and complicating language ("the conflict escalates") or go into detail about why they didn't manage to resolve the dispute before it became violent.

Well, again, this is where the articles on the individual accounts come in. If a reader wants to know what the nature of the dispute is, they can go to the historian's article and read more. Again, the reason is that the conflict is described differently by the different sources. We don't want the article to read: "Livy says... but Plutarch writes... Dionysius, however, says otherwise." If you don't you're picking one over the other and that's not our job as editors. This is the sprawl problem. The only way to keep the summary readable and still NPOV is to keep the verbiage as specific as possible without favoring one source over the other.

The verbiage in question isn't necessary at all; reading the summary there is no ambiguity in the language I used for this passage. You're adding unnecessary details that require explanation, which requires separating different accounts from different historians, when it's not even necessary to mention the things you're adding here.

• You've footnoted the detail of the wall, although apparently it's common to Livy, Dionysius, and Plutarch; it's an important detail and doesn't need to be a footnote.

• The uncertainty about who killed Remus was clearly worded before. While Dionysius mentions a specific culprit as one of several versions of events, it's not the only one, and the way it's worded now implies that a specific person was responsible, while other versions and Livy simply say that Remus was killed (if Romulus didn't kill him himself, which is the first of multiple versions reported by Livy, but not by Dionysius). The reworded passage emphasizes Romulus as fratricide, and indicates a specific person as the alternative culprit, while the previous wording allows for one or more versions, and concludes with the possibility of fratricide, which is suitable as the most dramatic, but not necessarily preferred version.

My point exactly. How do we treat the accounts where he's killed in a melee, and the wall is never mentioned? Here again, we must not trade a desire for specificity and succinctness for NPOV. Which is what happens if the article says "Wall Jumping/killing" as opposed to "wall jumping/killing" OR "melee/killing" or "melee/killed by Romulus" or "melee/killed by Celer". It's a problem. The only solution is language that doesn't favor one or the other. That's what the different historian's/sources articles are for.

As I wrote it, it clearly states that Remus was killed in the fighting after leaping the wall. All three authors appear to mention both elements; they're standard parts of the story. The only conflict is whether Romulus or someone else killed Remus, and that uncertainty is perfectly clear from what I wrote. Your rewording changes the emphasis, without stating that one account is right and the other wrong. I don't understand why you keep talking about a neutral point of view, while ignoring the fact that it was written neutrally in the first place.

• The Parilia was a relatively important detail, at least to Dionysius; but more importantly it gives the date of the founding of Rome, which is hardly unimportant to the Romulus myth. There's no reason to footnote it.

Then it belongs in the Dionysius of Halicarnassus article, not here. Unless it's footnoted, where it can be seen if the reader wants to go further.

That makes no sense. An article about Dionysius should have nothing to say about his comment on the Parilia in relating the story of Romulus. It's not an important detail for Dionysius. It is for Romulus. It also places the event being described in context, which is perfectly appropriate for this article. Taking a relevant and important point and shunting it into a footnote is what's questionable.

This article's topic is VERY problematic. It is a challenge for me as a person who values the meter and flow of prose. I want to say things that sound better to my eyes (mixed metaphors, anyone?), but, like every other article, this one must comply with WP:PG. Deciding that "the wall" should be included but not "the melee" is NPOV. But to be fully WP:DUE for the various accounts/descriptions would violate MOS:ACCESS. The only alternative is to limit the article to the general tense and make sure that a reader is directed to the individual accounts which don't run into this problem. :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Haploidavey:@P Aculeius: Since this is my talk page, I trust you will indulge me in taking this moment to say how awesome this exchange is. I spend my days with people fixing licenses, resolving auto registration troubles and having exactly ZERO conversations or discussions about the things I am most passionate.  :-)

"Took the kingdom away" doesn't necessarily mean that Numitor ever had possession of it, so Plutarch is ambiguous; Livy is ambiguous; and the argument that Dionysius isn't ambiguous hangs entirely on the word "resumed" (in a translation, I add) occurring removed a considerable length from the story of Amulius usurping the throne. So while we might like to assume that this is the correct interpretation, there remains considerable ambiguity; hence my choice of "rightful" as an adjective to describe Numitor's kingship, instead of "former". It avoids the problem of ambiguity entirely, and further indicates that Numitor should have been king, instead of Amulius, which is a useful shade of meaning in this context. On a subsequent occasion you insist that a standard part of the story should be omitted, or at best limited to a footnote, because not every version mentioned by the authors involves it, rendering it ambiguous. Yet you inconsistently argue that this ambiguity can be ignored or left in a footnote, when all that is necessary to avoid the problem is to reword the sentence... or in fact, restore the previous wording.

I would argue that you cannot take something away from someone if they never had it. I think it's fair to say that the accounts, read together, are correctly interpreted as "Numitor was king and Amulius usurped his throne." That said, I looked at Livy's latin text and it uses the verb Lego ("legat") which could be read as "crowned" but could also be read as "designated" or "chosen". So there's that... totally unhelpful bit.  :-)

• Describing a person as "mythical" comes with the added baggage of implying that he did not exist, which is a dispute that this article needs to avoid. I've been very careful about my use of the words "myth" and "legend" in this article just in order to avoid that connotation.

In English, the word "myth" is widely understood to mean something other than its technical meaning (a traditional story told for a specific purpose): it is understood to mean "fictional, imaginary, false". To a lesser degree that connotation also attaches to the word "legend", although it is more widely understood that real persons and events can be described as "legends" or "legendary". A neutral point of view in relating the subjects of mythology/ancient history requires that one not use language suggesting that a particular story is false or person fictional, unless the story itself or the source being cited so states. As editors we do not imply that some gods are real and others false, that legendary figures or mythical beasts are fictional or imaginary. While this does not preclude the careful use of the words "myth" and "legend" to refer to specific things, it means that one must be extremely careful not to create ambiguity that would lead people to infer that we are describing whatever it is as false. The persons concerned with the Romulus myth may or may not have existed, in some form or other; so it is inappropriate to describe them as mythical.

This is an important point, fundamental to development of the Romulus article. If we assume Romulus as entirely fictional, belonging only in an article on Roman myth, then he has no place in what's generally considered history, except as symbol, or cult figure, or stereotype. He might have profound significance, but no substance, and no "acts" or "real incidents" could be attached to him as a mooted King of Rome. But if he were removed from a historical or quasi-historic account of Rome's foundation, on the grounds that he's likely a composite figure, or fictional, or mythic, we'd still be left with an exactly Romulus-shaped hole; we can call it "Romulus". Some important elements of his life and rule are inevitably fiction (or more accurately, likely part of a mythos or tradition - for which, see Romulus and Remus) but we don't actually know which, and we mostly we don't need to know which. In the Romulus article, we should play it straight; the sources say what sources say. A clear narrative is preferable, one with minimal circumstantial details, cross-questioning between sources, commentary and complexity en route. Once that's done, we've recourse to the commentary, critiques and analysis of modern secondary sources. Haploidavey (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had never considered this. THANK YOU. I have done a number of edits related to this myth and I am going to go back over them with this in mind. If you are so inclined, please do the same. If you see something that doesn't jibe with this point, please edit it.

• There is no justification for a "citation needed" tag for a footnote to an adequately cited statement, which additionally identifies the source material beyond any dispute. It's in Livy, the exact citation follows, and we don't need a secondary source to state that it's at that point in Livy.

I added the CN because you have asserted a couple of times here that he had more than one son. I went back and read Livy and I see this: "murders his brother's male issue"--Ch.I p.3. That could be either singular or plural. Whereas the other two definitely only mention a single son. So, please point the article at a source that explicitly says "sons" or "2 sons" or something.

Your translation says, "male issue", mine says "male children". You could argue that your translation is ambiguous, but the fact that "male issue" is given instead of "son" implies that there were either multiple sons, or at least one son with sons of his own. That's the natural interpretation in your translation; mine is simply clearer. In either cases, no citation is needed; anyone checking the cited source will see what it says.

Okay, I looked at Livy's original Latin and it reads "Stirpem", which is definitely singular.

As I wrote it, it clearly states that Remus was killed in the fighting after leaping the wall. All three authors appear to mention both elements; they're standard parts of the story. The only conflict is whether Romulus or someone else killed Remus, and that uncertainty is perfectly clear from what I wrote. Your rewording changes the emphasis, without stating that one account is right and the other wrong. I don't understand why you keep talking about a neutral point of view, while ignoring the fact that it was written neutrally in the first place.

Well, I'm not sure I agree.

• Livy says "Remus died from a blow received in the crowd". And then "A more common version is "jumped the wall".
• Plutarch's version is frankly a mess, however, he does says "jumped the wall" (but then goes on to say "Faustulus also died in the battle"???)
• Dionysius says "[The followers of the two brothers...] arming themselves without orders from their leaders, began war; and a sharp battle ensued in which many were slain on both sides [...] Remus [was] slain in this action." He then goes on to say here are the other "less likely" accounts, and mentions the wall.

So, I think the correct reading of the Livy and Dionysius is that Remus died during a melee. The fact that they mention the wall account, and even say it's "more common" doesn't change their language insofar as their version of the fratricide is that it occurred in a melee and that the account of the wall is one to which they do not give credit as the actual events. Plutarch does say "wall" but he also refers to a battle, so, because it is a big piece of the story, I would propose the following:

"The conflict between the twins only escalated in the wake of the omens. It culminates with the death of Remus. In some accounts, he is killed after mockingly leaping over his brother's newly constructed walls. In others, he dies during a violent clash between those loyal to him and those loyal to Romulus. Some accounts say that he died by Romulus' own hands, and some that he was killed by a follower of Romulus."

Anyway, that's my two denarii (denariis?).

Each time you address this point it sounds like you're saying that Remus leaping the wall that Romulus had begun and being killed in a battle are mutually exclusive; that the article needs to say one or the other, but not both. I've always read the accounts as a battle instigated by or following Remus leaping the wall; both events are usually treated as if they occurred, and the most logical way to describe them is as a connected unity. Whether Faustulus was involved seems to be a minor detail that doesn't need to be mentioned here.

I still object to the proposed wording on multiple grounds. The conflict wasn't some pre-existing thing that was increased by the omens; it flowed from the omens. So it didn't escalate, and "in the wake of" is a cliché. The second sentence is completely unnecessary, since subject and verb can easily appear in the following sentence. The three that follow that split what could easily be said in one sentence into three more, as if these are all mutually exclusive options, which they're not. There are three cases of the wrong tense used here, and some awkward phrasing ("after mockingly leaping" conjures a ridiculous or melodramatic image, and it just sounds awkward to split "after" from "leaping"). I think you should return to the previous wording, which was perfectly clear. P Aculeius (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Parilia was a relatively important detail, at least to Dionysius; but more importantly it gives the date of the founding of Rome, which is hardly unimportant to the Romulus myth. There's no reason to footnote it.

Then it belongs in the Dionysius of Halicarnassus article, not here. Unless it's footnoted, where it can be seen if the reader wants to go further.

That makes no sense. An article about Dionysius should have nothing to say about his comment on the Parilia in relating the story of Romulus. It's not an important detail for Dionysius. It is for Romulus. It also places the event being described in context, which is perfectly appropriate for this article. Taking a relevant and important point and shunting it into a footnote is what's questionable.

Okay, I should have been clearer. There is a "Foundation of Rome" section of the Dionysius article, and it contains a description of his account.

OR

It could be in a brief section on this page under a "Primary sources" section, with a brief overview of the different ancient accounts. I agree that the date is important.

OR better still

It could be in a "Date of Rome's founding" section separate from this part. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The founding date and Parilia certainly important enough to be placed "front of house" in this article. Almost everything Romulus was thought to have founded had significance for Romans and Roman historians (offhand I can think of at least two emperors who were styled (or claimed to be) a "second Romulus" (refounders of Rome, in effect). Even his name was part of his legacy. Haploidavey (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius:Each time you address this point it sounds like you're saying that Remus leaping the wall that Romulus had begun and being killed in a battle are mutually exclusive; that the article needs to say one or the other, but not both. I've always read the accounts as a battle instigated by or following Remus leaping the wall; both events are usually treated as if they occurred, and the most logical way to describe them is as a connected unity. Whether Faustulus was involved seems to be a minor detail that doesn't need to be mentioned here.

So, Livy tells the wall-jumping tale as: Remus "in derision" leaped over the wall and was "slain by Romulus in a passion". His other version is that "having met in an altercation", Remus is killed by "a blow received in the crowd".

Dionysius tells that Remus died in a battle between the two groups of followers. In his recount of the wall tale, Remus derides (mocks?) the wall and jumps over it saying that any enemy could do the same. At which point Celer, the foreman of the project says something to the effect of "I can make sure one enemy never jumps over this wall again." and brained him with a pickax on the spot.

Plutarch says that when Remus was enraged when he discovered Romulus' cheating in the contest of the omens. When he found his brother, he ridiculed (mocked?) the trench he was building and when he jumped over it, he was struck dead on the spot.

So, yeah, I do see them as incompatible. The key to the wall jumping/derisive ridiculing version is its two hits nature: "someone hit Remus" and "Remus hit the ground". Whereas the other account is a melee/battle/fight/donnybrook event. The best support for their not contradicting one another is in Plutarch, who mentions (at least in my english translation) a battle after describing the wall-jumping-Remus-bashing incident in telling us that Faustulus died in it as well.

I still object to the proposed wording on multiple grounds. The conflict wasn't some pre-existing thing that was increased by the omens; it flowed from the omens. So it didn't escalate, and "in the wake of" is a cliché.

I re-read the portions, and I can see your point. There is language to the effect of "omen argument caused fratricide". However:

• Dionysius talks about the origins of the dispute as their newly discovered heritage and the ambition of both to become the leader of the new community. (Book I ch.85 p.5)

• Livy says that the root of the problem was ambition and the fact that they were twins (no older brother to assert seniority). (Book I ch.6)

• Plutarch says: "But when they set out to establish their city, a dispute at once arose concerning the site." (Lives Ch.9 p.4)

But I agree that the augury does seem to have been the flash point.

The second sentence is completely unnecessary, since subject and verb can easily appear in the following sentence. The three that follow that split what could easily be said in one sentence into three more, as if these are all mutually exclusive options, which they're not. There are three cases of the wrong tense used here, and some awkward phrasing ("after mockingly leaping" conjures a ridiculous or melodramatic image, and it just sounds awkward to split "after" from "leaping"). I think you should return to the previous wording, which was perfectly clear. P Aculeius (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More absurdist than melodramatic. Apologies for "mockingly leaping". Wow, that really sucks. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If already linked in the text, we do not link again in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Thanks for that. I haven't edited any medical articles before. Because medical language occupies a sort of "dual space" between common and scientific terms, I wasn't sure if that guideline applied equally. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the e-mail for your log-in credentials. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look; not an area I know much about, but I hope I can give you some useful feedback. Do you plan to nominate this article for good article status? Or are you just looking for general feedback about things that might be improved? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I didn't know nominating for good article status was a thing. I guess that is different from "assessment"? Have you thoughts as to whether I should or not? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, just yet. There are a set of criteria you can look at if you're interested, but let's just look at the article as it stands and see what can be done to improve it, and we can talk about where to go from there if you decide to keep working on it. I just had a quick read through, and will come back with more comments later, but very briefly for now:

• Is there scope for an article on Depictions of Romulus and Remus? The gallery of pictures at the end is a bit more than can really fit in an article, but if there's enough scholarly discussion perhaps a separate article could work, with a summary in this one?
• I think the primary source list at the start of the article needs to be sourced for any discussion. How about a table giving the sources, and then a paragraph or two giving modern scholars' opinions of the sources, if you can find some discussion?
• The "In popular culture" section seems too long to me, and for my money could go completely. I always think it's best for, e.g., the film to link back to the main article, rather than have a section like this. However, if you have sources discussing any of these representations as being of interest, that could justify some of these.

I hope that's helpful; more in the next few days, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: "Is there scope for an article on Depictions of Romulus and Remus? The gallery of pictures at the end is a bit more than can really fit in an article, but if there's enough scholarly discussion perhaps a separate article could work, with a summary in this one?"

My own position as an editor (I hope wholly in keeping with WP:MOS) is that images are under-used in content. They can convey so much information and they invite engagement in readers. Please tell me if I have that wrong. R & R, Romulus and the she-wolf have been one of the major subjects in Western art since the beginning. The Lupercal, Mars' rape of Rhea, the death of Amulius, the Sabine women, the death of Tatius, there are two many works to name them all. The galleries address that significant aspect of the subjects.

If there's more value in having a link to a gallery than the images themselves, please enlighten me. That said, I could see a Foundation of Rome in art page.

There's no question the article could use more exposition on their depiction in the various ages, I might have something to contribute, owing to my newly minted Oxford Academic Journals subscription (polishes his fingernails and then rubs them on his lapel), but it's not an area I'm as versed in as the others. I might look around for someone to help. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMAGES is the place to look; "don't overload the article with images" is a judgement call, but I think you're going to find a lot of editors will consider you have too many at the moment. If you think you can make a case for them, leave them in there; I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the strictures in the manual of style. I think Foundation of Rome in art is definitely worth considering. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie:, thanks bro. Please take a moment to look at She-wolf (Roman mythology) (Above was a typo). Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an excellent start. I'll take another look at Romulus and Remus, probably tonight or tomorrow, and see if I can come up with more comments for you on that. Let's look at the she-wolf article afterwards; I don't have the bandwidth to look at too many articles at the same time! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look, and one thing that jumped out at me was the citations for the primary sources discussion. Quite a bit is unsourced, and more is sourced to the Dionysius and Plutarch. It would be much better if you could find a summary of the primary sources in a secondary source, and use that to give the account of the primary sources. The problem with directly quoting the primary sources without any other scholarly sources is one of due weight; are you quoting or summarizing the elements that scholars find important?

The basic structure of the article looks right: primary sources, then modern discussion, historicity, and iconography; that all makes sense. However, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and currently it's a summary of the legend; it should include summary discussion of all the sections in the article. Conversely everything in the lead should be also in the article. I would suggest leaving the lead till last, though; I find that if I write a lead before the article is more or less complete, I just have to go back and rewrite it as I rework the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Just to be clear, are these comments for the she-wolf or R & R article? And thanks again.

I was referring to R&R. By the way, that edit you made earlier moving some material from the lead to the body was a simple way to really improve the article! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Also, is it possible you could share something from JSTOR from me? Is that allowed? I'm wait-listed on it.

Sure; you can also request things at WP:RX, which is remarkably effective. Let me know what you're looking for, and send me a Wikipedia email so I know your email address, and I'll email it to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Julie Thompson Klein has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Dear InformationvsInjustice, I award you The Christianity Barnstar for all your hard work in WikiProject Christianity related articles, especially your recent creation of Vivarium (monastary). Keep up the good work! Your efforts are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 00:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello InformationvsInjustice, I applied for a Pelican Book and it is approved. Some how I don't get any further information (it could be for some reason, I miss the mail). Can you have a look at it, please! DanGong (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DanGong. Alas, I am probably not the person to whom you intended to address this message. I do not have any involvement with Pelican Books. But good luck, and thanks so much for contributing :-)

Your account is ready and should be live now! Happy editing!--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was taking a look at the Isaac Casaubon article and noticed you've been occasionally removing links on the grounds that no such article exists. Please keep in mind that, even in the far-flung future year of 2017, redlinks serve to signal that an article is needed, and that ideally we're only supposed to remove them if we're certain the subject doesn't warrant an article. Division of Safety of Dams, maybe not, Prolegomena ad Homerum, probably. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the feedback! I'll go back through my contributions and restore as appropriate. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marcus Aurelius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xylander. 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) 11:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Just wanted to thank you for the note at my talk, and apologise for the delayed response (too much real life going on). Alas, your instinct was right. The whole thing's so far out of my wheelhouse that I wouldn't know where to start. "Cannabis" is virtually universal in the UK; that's about all I have to offer. I know so very little about the topic that I'm unable to give an opinion either way. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you're waiting on approval for access to The Cambridge Library at the Wikipedia Library. The Cambridge Library currently has a waitlist due to lack of available accounts. In the meantime, the Resource Exchange can help! We connect content creators with reliable sources. If you need a specific article or passage from a book that you don't have access to, drop by and leave a request. We're happy to help you access paywalled and print sources to the extent allowable by copyright law. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that remains after all has been discussed to bits, is to gather all the material we could have in a general ganster film artcile, and with it see what structure we could give to the general article. Do you want to work on this? We could start something on a user subpage for a start and then when we have something worth it we could unredirect Ganster film. My knowledge on the topic is minimal, but I am good in structuring and scouting for material. How are you on this? Hoverfish Talk 22:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, @Hoverfish: herein shall the draft be :-) I trust you'll help out. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Film Award
		If I deserve one, you definitely deserve one for starting and expanding, the much needed Gangster film article! Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary of Romulus, You said that there was a disagreement in the sources regarding Romulus's birth and death year. Could you elaborate on this? The only birth year that the body text gave was 771 BC by Plutarch, And i figured that the year his reign ended was the year he died (Since that's how the roman monarchy supposedly worked). Koopinator (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, InformationvsInjustice. You are invited to join WikiProject Organized crime, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Organized crime. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 13:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to have added it when I moved some former content last December. I have no idea why. However, it is unrelated to the current content, the proposed bomb tester rewrite. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated 'Causeless cause' for deletion. I request you see earlier discussion on deletion and redirection. I still think it's notable without secondary sources, since there are a lot of those, I just don't have the interest anymore. However, it's a big enough topic in modern metaphysics/occultism, that the topic had been redirected before, with information in a wider topic article. There's definitely a page it could be redirected to, perhaps the material moved, rather than deleted.--dchmelik (t|c) 05:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dchmelik: thanks so much for getting back to me so promptly and thanks for your contributions to the community. Even though I nominated this article for deletion I would prefer it not be deleted. The problem is that in its current state it just isn't up to parr. The fact that you were willing to reach out despite the fact that it's been so long and you're not really active with the topic anymore says a lot about what a good member of the community you are :-) You say that it's a big Topic in the occult community, can you give me any advice about how to find other references to it? I looked add Google Scholar and found nothing, and there are so few page visits and links to it from other pages that somehow that bigness is being obscured. Thanks so much for reaching out and I'll do what I can. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term was originated in 1800s by Madame Blavatsky (HPB) to define a metaphysical aspect of Hinduism in English. Apart from some obscure 1600s text, she's considered the founder of 'New Age,' but first, her own school of thought, Theosophy. It influenced maybe all of modern occultism, soon leading to several branches of(f) Theosophy, like what some call Neotheosophy, as well as Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (so also Wicca,) Astrum Argentum, Arcane School, Agni Yoga, Anthroposophy, Ascended Masters, etc., and other new groups appearing throughout and past the 20th century. I don't know if causeless cause is referred to in any contemporary-type scholarly articles, but there were over 23,000 results in a Google search, including from (the main?) Anthroposophy writer and many Theosophy writers, one Bahai writer. Maybe later today or next few days I could look for some more references from any of that, etc.--dchmelik (t|c) 22:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dchmelik: thanks again for helping out. I went to the live help chat and was directed to a couple of possible sources by another editor. As the article is now, I believe it should be nominated for deletion. So here's what I'd like to propose, I'd like you to revert your deletion of the tag, once it gets indexed other editors may very well be able to come and help. I'll go ahead and see if I can use those sources, and if you can make any changes as well, please do so. Hopefully, the consensus will be for keep Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess do so then. Actually, I had forgotten some of the details: HPB used the term to describe the same sort of idea in Hindu, Greek, and Jewish Kabbalah philosophy. I've just saved the article anyway, in case it ends up I need to redirect it and re-add a section someone added before (HPB's 'three fundamental propositions' on her page)--dchmelik (t|c) 22:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dchmelik: why don't you go ahead and proposed the move. There's no reason that both discussions can't happen at once. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I informally stated material could be moved and/or the page redirected, but would rather just see the article detailed. Years ago, after someone directed to a new description on HPB before, descriptions of her main ideas were removed. I'm not active enough on Wikipedia to know what people want in that article, or how to propose a move/redirect to a section.--dchmelik (t|c) 08:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iranians in Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nara (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) 11:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your thanks on my edit to Arethas of Caesarea. If you are interested there are more entries in "Category:Articles incorporating text from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia with no article parameter" that could use a similar edit. I also find the Copyvio Detector at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ a useful tool in finding how much text has been copied. DivermanAU (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate,

I saw your edits on the page Romulus when I was an IP. Would you mind talking about this on the talk page because we have a long conversation on it? Thanks mate.

And thanks for being friendly:)

Cheers

PrinceofFrancia (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fall of Constantinople, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bombard (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) 09:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Barnstar of Tacitus is Stella Horrei Taciti... :) Thx, John... Veryproicelandic (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your query on my talk page – I forgot to alert you though. Kanjuzi (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above translation. Vitomontreal (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Its first recipient thanks you! Haploidavey (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Sorry I'm late in responding to this, been rather busy this summer! Barnstar of Tacitus would probably be Stella honorem Taciti, which roughly translates to "star in honor of Tacitus". I'm not quite sure what horreorum means--the only related word I could find was the verb horreo, which means roughly what you'd expect it to mean. If you've found another translation for it, though, let me know! Amphytrite (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
143		Battle of the Nile (47 BC) (talk)	Add sources
3,311		Mark Antony (talk)	Add sources
1,279		Roman Kingdom (talk)	Add sources
484		Pan-Slavism (talk)	Add sources
80		Sardinia and Corsica (talk)	Add sources
315		Senta Berger (talk)	Add sources
5		L'Assomption River (talk)	Cleanup
177		Contemporary Latin (talk)	Cleanup
129		Vintage Culture (talk)	Cleanup
9,006		San Francisco (talk)	Expand
160		Tokyo Electric Power Company (talk)	Expand
45		Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination (talk)	Expand
95		Roman–Gallic wars (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
553		Nuclear meltdown (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
15		Marcus Octavius (tribune of the plebs 133 BC) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
51		Pacific Northwest College of Art (talk)	Merge
60		Pranami Sampraday (talk)	Merge
22		Portugis (talk)	Merge
186		Ancient Roman technology (talk)	Wikify
3		In re Gateway Learning Corp. (talk)	Wikify
20		Claire McCusker Murray (talk)	Wikify
1		Hendrée E. Jones (talk)	Orphan
2		Andrés Francisco Giles (talk)	Orphan
2		Ahn Il-joo (talk)	Orphan
27		Censorinus (talk)	Stub
42		Masao Yoshida (nuclear engineer) (talk)	Stub
39		Sterope (Pleiad) (talk)	Stub
3		Tienhoven, Stichtse Vecht (talk)	Stub
13		Battle of Camerinum (talk)	Stub
2		Zijderveld (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please comment on the featured article nomination for Marcus Aurelius? The instructions say to indicate if you are a significant contributor to the article before its nomination. Векочел (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear InformationvsInjustice, thank you for starting the work on the article on M. Desjardins, which I actually planned to start myself. The problem with organized crime figures is the lack of reliable sources, so it is always hard to find the necessary materials for such article, or alternatively, your article will get tagged with those annoying tags that this article uses mainly one source. You did a great job! Not to speak this as any criticism, I will add in from some of the sources that I have dug up over the course of the past year, which are just different sources from yours-it is that what Wikipedia is all about? Thank you for starting the article, for all your hard work and for inviting me to contribute. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being late in getting started; the demands of work plus illness knocked me for the past couple of days. You really did an excellent job on the article on M. Desjardins, who is a most unusual character-I cannot think of another example of a non-Sicilian rising up so far in the Mafia. Happy Holidays!--A.S. Brown (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A.S. Brown: Yes, his case is pretty rare. I also saw this when I made Réal Simard with Frank Cotroni, however he was a hit man. Feel free to take a look at those as well. Merry Christmas, regard. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Thank you, Vaselineeeeeeee! I will take a look at those pages as well. By the way, the book I was looking at last night, Mafia Inc confirmed that Raynald Desjardins is not related to Andre Desjardins, through I still think that the two men probably share a common ancestor. Merry Christmas! Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

Great job in writing major content in the proposed article about Raynald Desjardins, User:InformationvsInjustice. Thanks for asking me and User:Vaselineeeeeeee to collaborate. The article should now be ready for publication (by you, since you did most of the work and came up with the concept for the article). This is exactly how Wikipedia should work. I would be happy to collaborate with you again. Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi InformationvsInjustice. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, so do check back at WP:PERM/NPR in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You thanked me for something in 2017 (thanks log: ) whatever it was, you're welcome. Earlier in '10s I got discouraged with Wikipedia, so the thanks helped, but I doubt I'll ever feel the same as I did about Wikipedia about as when it began... on various articles not always fitting popular knowledge/views, there was so much edit-warring the mediation group gave up so I had to also... still the case, except I'm almost sure I'll be back occasionally/rarely trying to edit only other articles than those. I hope you will also, but a lot of people left in the '10s (including many I knew.)--dchmelik (t|c)