User talk:Oatley2112

Hey, thanks for the great work on the Byzantines!

Welcome!

Hello, Oatley2112, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Melchoir (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Diogenes

Hello! I am well, thank you, and I hope you are well too. There are indeed too few Byzantinophiles around here... :) I checked on Constantine Diogenes on the few sources I have available here (most of my Byzantine books I have loaned to my mother, who is teaching Byzantine history this year). I didn't really find anything (Psellos for example doesn't even mention him, unless I missed it), and unfortunately I don't have time for an exhaustive search in the primary sources in Google Books. However it makes sense that he was not crowned, since officially, Romanos IV became emperor through Eudokia, and her sons by Constantine X were co-emperors as well. It would not be tolerated by the Doukas clan, already very distrustful of Diogenes, that their position would be usurped by his elder son by another wife... Constantine ✍ 15:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pompey

Hi Oatley - I didn't notice you were mid-edit. Thought I'd let you know I'm done for the night: best check your recent changes aren't lost. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I[reply]

Sources

Hello! Good edits on the emperors & usurpers articles. However, a word of caution: the main source you use, Triumph & Tragedy: The Rise and Fall of Rome's Immortal Emperors, is written by yourself and published with no apparent editorial oversight, at least not sufficient for it to count as WP:RS (and I am unclear as to the implications for WP:COI here). Best stick to using academic or at least well-established sources (even Finlay, although horribly outdated). Constantine ✍ 12:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I was afraid you'd take this the wrong way... Best of luck with your endeavours in the world of publishing :) BTW, I've compiled a list of sources, which are either online and/or which I have as ebooks or printed books. Since most of them are Byzantine-related, if you want any, feel free to ask! Constantine ✍ 21:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, when you write or expand a Byzantine-related article, please add it to Portal:Byzantine Empire/New articles and the Index of Byzantine Empire-related articles. Keep up the good work! Constantine ✍ 07:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It's not really my field of interest, so apart from Runciman, no, at least not in the sense of a comprehensive work covering the entire period. AFAIK, Runciman is still the standard work in the field. Constantine ✍ 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Constantine III (western emperor)

My God! Are you aware that I wrote this article in, basically speaking, its current form back in November 2002, & you are the first person to actually add the inline citations it has needed? (My excuse for not doing it is that (1) the article was written before we had things like cite.php to use to create footnotes with; & (2) I've worked on a few thousand other articles since then, & kept telling myself "one of these days" I'd dig out the two secondary sources I used to properly sprinkle citations into this article.) Sad thing is that not only are the two secondary sources I used more recent than Bury & Gibbons -- whom you cited -- but that in the last 10 years Britannica (the academic journal which publishes articles on Roman History relating to Britain) has presented even more recent work on this topic. If you are interested in working further on this article -- I'm not possessive about this one in the least -- I can offer some help on sources for further improving this article. -- llywrch (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the general facts about Constantine's life haven't changed since Bury or Gibbon wrote -- Constantine was proclaimed Emperor in Britain, crossed over to Gaul, & was defeated & killed by Constantinus -- the finer details either come more into -- or out of -- focus as research continues down the years, even when no new facts have been recovered. Besides the two articles I had referenced when I wrote the article -- by Stevens & Thompson -- you can also have a look at Sheppard Frere's Britannia (revised edition, 1978), which covers more than just this period. Do you have access to an electronic periodical database like JSTOR? I could find the articles in Britannia I mention above & supply you with their bibliographical details. -- llywrch (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maximinus Thrax

Congrats! What else to say for your work there. It was badly needed.--Dipa1965 (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on keeping on :) Wikipedia needs to pay attention to quality/verifiability instead of quantity and work like yours is a great contribution to that. I wish I had your knowledge, plus native language ability, courage and the resources. I too appreciate D. S. Potter's work btw. Wishing the best.--Dipa1965 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate

Hello!

Generally, I am fine with it, but I am not sure about the last few sentences. The consulate in its classical form had been dead since Justinian I, and from the time of Justin II, only the emperor or members of his family was ever named consul(s), with the emperor usually holding the office from his accession, i.e. in essence the situation you describe as only happening post-Justinian II. AFAIK Justinian II was the last emperor to actually use the title "consul", his successors never really bothered with it. Do you have some sources for the post-Justinian II situation? Constantine ✍ 09:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work on Justinian II! I am really glad that someone is taking the trouble to bring the emperors' articles up to scratch! A few nitpicks, however: you rely too much on Norwich, Bury and Ostrogorsky. While useful and largely correct on the narrative of the events, they are often outdated (Norwich I also consider rather unreliable as a main source for a serious article, whatever his literary merits) as far as administrative, political and religious issues are concerned. When Ostrogorsky wrote his history for instance, the thematic system was understood in a completely different light than it is today. You should strive to make greater use of more recent (post-1980) and specialized sources at least for cross-checking and verification, such as Treadgold's history (he too has some issues with chronology and his own theories on some events and administrative/military matters that are not mainstream, but is largely reliable and provides great context), Haldon's Warfare, state and society, etc. As I said before, feel free to check my list of sources and ask for any of them. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too like Norwich, after all, it is he and Runciman who got me seriously into Byzantine history after the dull and dreary stuff we were taught at school had frightened me off it ;). However, he excels exactly at that: writing an accessible and even enjoyable popular history. While generally accurate, by definition he focuses on the drama and less on the "dry" mechanics of administration etc, and even less on competing or alternative interpretations to some events. I have also found several errors and simplifications in his work, so I would only use him for a serious encyclopedic article if I could cross-check every statement or for describing the broader narrative. On the sources, do you have an email where I can contact you? If you don't want to disclose yours, send it to my email and I'll reply. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 00:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few issues

Hello Oatley. I'm unhappy having to play the bad guy here, but I'm afraid you can't use your last book as a reference in the articles you've been editing lately because of the policies and guidelines that have been put in place in wikipedia. There are multiple issues here. To begin with, a potential one is Conflict of interest. Personally, I don't think there is a major problem here, as you were overt regarding being the author from the start, and in WP:COI it's added that "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged." This issue is also dealt under self citing. The main issue would appear to be here rather a clash with WP:RS, even if even without this one I'm not certain (please forgive me if I'm rude here) you're exactly under the "professional or academic expertise" field mentioned in COI and the premise in COS that the "editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication". Returning to RS, the problem is that "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". History articles even more than others rely on scholarly material, and academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. There are some rare cases when non-academic works are OK in they come from high-quality mainstream publications, like is the case of Norwich, but in this case there are scholarly reviews of his works and his titles are often in bibliographies of academics' works. Regarding backing up with primary sources, I'm afraid this presents serious problems as "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". Ancient and medieval sources are for there same nature unreliable, and thus need a secondary source to interpret them in any case. Also, remember that sources to be reliable have to be uptodate, so an authors that have ceased to be used in current scholarship, like Finlay or Gibbon (except in a historiographic perspective). Sorry again for the bad news. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Oatley. I'm happy you didn't take my points badly, ti be honest I was a bit afraid.. ;-) Starting with the first point, if I followed literally the policy I would probably have to say no, but to be honest on the condition you remember to use your book for an inline citation always put also another relatively recent secondary source, just like in the example you made to me (I'd say as a rule, not over 60 years old). Regarding older secondary sources, I understand you miss the flavour they can give to a tale: I personally love the way Gibbon can present a story. I'd say that an occasional quotation from Gibbon isn't bad and another classic modern historian, but only if it's stated as an opinion and not a fact and the author is mentioned not only in the note but also in the text. Regarding primary sources, in Roman and Medieval context, you could use both in the same inline note: for example, "according to Cassius Dio, Claudius was... "(ref)Cassius, LI 15, in Martindale, p. xx(/ref), that's perfectly OK according to the rules and used. This is also because primary sources can be very untrustworthy, and a prime example of this is exactly of the Historia Augusta; for this passing it through a secondary source is a sort of guarantee that at least that specific passage from the PS is OK. Also you could use if you want, as a way to use directly ancient sources, specific windows detached from the main of the article. To better understand what I mean give a look at Aspasia, a Featured Article.

Now, as you proposed, lets take one of the articles you've been working on. Starting from notes 3 (Dio) and 4 (HA), these are almost certainly mentioned in secondary sources and a good way to find one is through a search in Google books, as many academic works can be previewed. As for your notes 6 and 23, here you cite your book: they're all uncontroversial statements, just search one or more secondary sources to back them up. I hope you don't see this as a bad judgement on the edits you've been making: far from it, it's really great to see somebody interested in Roman history finally around here, and, let me add, a good editor. I just hope these observations can help you in making that your already great work even better. Ciao,Aldux (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Heraclius (son of Constans II)

On 6 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heraclius (son of Constans II), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tiberius (son of Constans II)

On 6 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tiberius (son of Constans II), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpers

Yes, no problem. BTW, perhaps the list should be renamed to "Usurpers, conspirators and rebels" or something like this, since not all of these people actually claimed the crown for themselves. Constantine ✍ 11:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For creating many valuable articles on events and people in the Roman and Byzantine periods, as well as expanding & greatly improving not a few imperial biographies. Keep them coming! Constantine ✍ 09:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Theodore Mangaphas

Hello! Well, aside from the concerns over Triumph and Tragedy as a RS and the whole COI thing, the fact is that the source is not really needed: you merely added additional citations from it, changed the dates a bit as well as adding a death date that is probably not correct. Vougiouklaki is another case altogether: the Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World is written by scholars, and often some of the best in the field. I always prefer secondary sources or at least try to verify its contents with other books, but it is as reliable as say, www.roman-emperors.org or other online encyclopaedias. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

Thank you so much for all the help on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia/Drafts/Roman Dacia. We will be honored to have you in WP:DACIA as well. Best regards.--Codrin.B (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I am sure we will have the chance to collaborate again in the future since the Roman Dacia topic has many sub-articles directly related to Ancient Rome.--Codrin.B (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For the great work on salvaging Roman Dacia. Thanks so much! Codrin.B (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberius II Constantine and his dates

Hi, Oatley. Great work on fleshing out this article. But may I remind you to pay more attention to the dates you add to your articles? Almost all events of "574" were dated to "584" in your text, and those of "577" were dated to "587". I edited the text, but I could see such errors confusing some readers. Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lucius Postumius Megellus (consul 305 BC)

On 2 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lucius Postumius Megellus (consul 305 BC), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when Roman consul Lucius Postumius Megellus left office in 290 BCE, he was fined 500,000 asses, at the time the largest fine issued to a Roman citizen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lucius Postumius Megellus (consul 305 BC).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax ProD

Hi Oatley, since Gaius Flavius Antoninus has a veneer of plausibility, it might be helpful to have an endorsement using {{Proposed deletion endorsed|comment}} under my ProD. I went with a proposed deletion because the very fact that we had to discuss the article made it likely that a speedy deletion would be declined. Good to see that you've been ProDing these Settipani stubs. ^davidiad _.: 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Julius Severus (tribune)

Hi Oatley2112, I have read your reasons and probably the subject is, as you noticed, non notable. Deletion protocol states that a deprodded article could not re-prodded, so in this case the solution is nominate the article via AfD. Otherwise, if we seek a faster solution, we could redirect this article to the one related to his brother, Gaius Julius Bassus, that briefly mention him. P.S. I have noticed, looking at the What links here page, we have two articles about Amyntas of Galatia, this one and this other, is that correct? Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage links

Hi Oatley, thanks for writing all those articles! I've gone through your history and added interlanguage links where I could. In the future, you might want to do this yourself; let me know if you have any questions! Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all your great new article contributions. ^davidiad _.: 02:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Valerius Messalla Thrasea Poplicola Helvidius Priscus

I understand the problems with such articles, but I removed the Prod tag, and redirected the article to the one on his son. I think that's the best way to handle these. If we have a name, and information on the person in the encyclopedia, I cannot see there there is any reason not to have a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking a naming example

I'm wondering whether you could help me with something. I'm looking for examples of Roman naming from the early empire that would give me a set like: Marcus Tullius Cicero; Tullia; Marcus Tullius Tiro, that is, a man, his daughter (or other female relative like a niece), and a freedman or new provincial citizen who took his name. I've only come up with republican examples because I don't work much with the empire. Also, if possible I would prefer that it not be Julio-Claudian. Ideally, each of the three would have an article, though if a set of names can be found, that is not a necessity. And it occurs to me that some inscription might even contain three names that might demonstrate these principles, and that would be quite tidy.

Just thought something might spring right to mind, since you do so much in this area. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project tagging

Hi Alexander. I notice that you create an article or two almost every day. Thanks for that! I wonder if you would be willing to tag the talk pages of your new articles with

{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome| importance=| class=}}

It will help members of the project coordinate articles (wikilinks, preventing duplicates with different nomenclature, etc.) and just get extra eyes on your work. You don't need to fill in any of the parameters (I think it might be frowned upon anyway), so it's really just a matter of pasting the above code onto the talk page after you create. Thanks and sorry to intrude, ^davidiad _.: 03:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks ... I'm sorry: "template" shouldn't have been included in the code above. I've deleted it. ^davidiad _.: 04:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion discussion

Hi Alexander, since you work on a lot of these articles, I thought I should let you know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Ambivulus in case you haven't seen it and have any input. ^davidiad _.:τ 01:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Synod of Rome (964), Oatley2112!

Wikipedia editor DCI2026 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Congratulations on creating your article! Nice work.

To reply, leave a comment on DCI2026's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

When you have a minute

… could you glance at this edit? Obviously my sources left me with the impression that it was the Piso who conspired against Nero, but another editor seems to think otherwise. No sources are offered, but every time I've been in a situation where I've had to sort out Calpurnii Pisones, I've felt less than confident. (BTW, thanks again for the naming suggestion a while back, which I thought I would be using sooner than I have—I just realized I still haven't added that section to the ever-burgeoning Roman Empire). Cynwolfe (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Marcus Appuleius for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marcus Appuleius 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/Marcus Appuleius 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. Gsingh (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early greetings for the new year

Best Wishes for a Happy New Year!
May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure.
Cynwolfe (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victory, Janus, Chronos, and Gaea (1532–34) by Giulio Romano

I appreciate your careful, sober work and no-drama approach to editing. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Scipio Salvito

Hi Oatley,

There are still sections listing Salvito as the father of Scipio (consul in 16 BC) and husband of Scribonia. You are certain that Salvito is not the same Publius Cornelius Scipio? There are mentions of this in geni and rootsweb (both listing wikipedia as a reference admittedly) and all through google as the father. This could explain why Augustus stole his wife as Salvito is a descendant of Scipio through Scipio's granddaughter. Anyway, I will not change it...but I suspect Salvito may indeed be the father. Please let me know, what you think.

I am the Blood 06:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood3 (talk • contribs)

RE: Scipio Salvito

Hi Alexander, you have convinced me that Salvito is probably not the father. However please read the article below and let me know what you think. Sextus Pompey was a consul in 35 BC but obviously did not complete his year. There are at least 2 suffect consuls on wikipedia's List of Roman consuls. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~dearbornboutwell/fam5425.html

I am the Blood 13:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood3 (talk • contribs)

Otho and Tiberius

Hi Alexander, I was wondering if you could advise me on something. There is an article claiming there were rumours about the paternity of Emperor Otho's father (whose father may have been either a knight or the result of an affair between Tiberius and a slave girl/freedwoman). Have you ever heard Otho claim that Tiberius was hia paternal grandfather in the way Emperor Claudius claimed Augustus was his paternal grandfather? Or it is possible due to the fact, Tiberius was loathed, he avoided remind ing people of this rumour during his brief reign? Please reply when you can. I am the Blood 12:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood3 (talk • contribs)

Moving an article

hi Alexander, I was wondering if you could have a look at this article and tell me, if I should move it into an article. It is about Lucius Aelius Lamia, creator of the famous gardens that bear his name. He may be the same Aelius as Lucius Aelius Tubero, but I doubt it very much. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Blood3/Lucius_Aelius_Lamia,_praetor_of_43BCE Regardless, it would be very nice if you could please review this; and if you approve of its content, perhaps move it as I don't know how. Thanks Alexander. I am the Blood 10:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Family of Emperor Tiberius

Hi Alexander, I was wonderign you could clear up something. What was the name of Emperor Tiberius' paternal grandfather: Drusus or Tiberius? Wikipedia mentions both but Tiberius Claudius Nero seems more likely (as Drusus is based on another gens hence why Livia Drusilla named her son on her gens due to the perceived uncertainty of his parentage (I won't debate who Emperor Claudius' biological paternal grandfather is)). So is it Drusus or Tiberius? Please let me know. Thanks Alexander. I am the Blood 06:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood3 (talk • contribs)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For uncovering the hoax article Gaius Flavius Antoninus, having gone unnoticed for eight years. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding years to short citations

Please see Talk:Romanos IV Diogenes#Adding years to short citations -- PBS (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Augustan History

Hi, I just saw your request for feedback on this article on the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome Talk page, but it appears you already submitted it for GA review. While it is well-written -- much more clear than I can usually manage -- I noticed two points that lacked attention, & may sink your chances of getting this thru GA. (If I were reviewing this article there, I would immediately flag them.)

Almost nothing was said about the fictitious personalities said to have written these biographies. (I missed seeing the two sentences mentioning them on my first read.) This is something I believe would be covered to more detail than has been done. Perhaps I'm expecting some Post-Contructionist message (or whatever the latest LitCrit jargon is for evaluating the possible roles of this framing device) waiting to be decoded here, but I wonder if anyone has considered whether the author had a purpose to having 6 fictional personae present this material, whether or not he executed his intent competently. Or at least some discussion about these personae & if any expert has detected any difference between the six beyond their names.
I miss any discussion of the textual transmission, publication history (at least stating when & where the editio princeps was produced, & a recent edition of the text), & a list of translations of this work. While the linked pages at LacusCurtius provide some of this (although for state-of-the-art circa 1914), it would be better to have a section in the article that covers this material. If you like, I can supply some of the info on the textual transmission. (Which is one reason I can't offer to review this article -- conflict of interest over an article that otherwise I feel is worthy of achieving GA status.)

Hope this helps. -- llywrch (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Llywrch, your suggestions are good ones, and I can certainly expand the article with some further discussion on the six scriptores. I would be very appreciative of your offer to provide some details on the textual transmission if you are able to do so. Thanks again! Oatley2112 (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One further point. In L.D. Reynold's Texts and Transmission (Oxford, 1983), the work is called Scriptores Historiae Augustae. ISTR it being called by this name in at least one other academic work. Something worth adding -- at least in a footnote. -- llywrch (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Llywrch. The article already has this title included, buried in the second sentence of the introduction. :) Oatley2112 (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm amazed I missed that, inasmuch as I read the article twice before posting that. I even noticed you had info on the editio princeps & on Symmachus' use of the text in the 6th century. Oh well. -- llywrch (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead & added a few paragraphs on the textual transmission to the article. I know my footnoting style is not identical to yours, but I also expect you to modify my small contribution as you see fit. ;-) Hope it improves the article. -- llywrch (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the input Llywrch. Yes, I will tweak this in the next couple of days. Oatley2112 (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Augustan History

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Augustan History 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 Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Augustan History

The article Augustan History you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Augustan History for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Augustan History

The article Augustan History you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Augustan History for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Oatley2112. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Your Excellent Work in Roman and Byzantine History

User:Oatley2112, shalom. I simply wanted to commend you on your excellent work in the field of Roman and Byzantine history. You are an asset to this educational venue. All the best to you! PS: If I should have any specific questions about this important period, I will direct my questions unto you.Davidbena (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

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!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Oatley2112. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Oatley2112. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John X

Hi! I made a few edits to Pope John X and I am quite impressed with what you did with the article. It looks to me like it could easily pass a WP:GA nomination. What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 14 regions of Medieval Rome, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pantheon and Via Lata. 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) 06:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com

Hi Oatley2112, I got your email. I don't see a current application for access for you. If there is one, then please email me the link to it. Otherwise, if you need to start one, you can visit https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/26/ and Apply. -- Netoholic @ 03:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colosseum is elliptical, not oval

If you explore books about the Colosseum, you’ll find the right information. The shape is elliptical. Carlo Dani (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Arch of Domitian

Hello, Oatley2112,

Thank you for creating Arch of Domitian.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi, thanks for creating the article. It appears to be orphan, could you link it wherever it's appropriate? Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Rejoy2003}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 05:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sulpicia, wife of of Lucius Scribonius Libo

When you created the article about Lucius Scribonius Libo (consul of 34), you said that he was married to certain Sulpicia, a relative of emperor Galba. Could you please tell me, what source was used to support such a statement? I'm asking this because all the sources I've read indicate that Libo's wife is not known. Симмах (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

P Aculeius (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Robin}} to your friends' talk pages.

P Aculeius (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]