User talk:UndercoverClassicist/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Spyridon Marinatos scheduled for TFA

Hi UC, This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Schro. I was sure I'd written a blurb for this -- has it been adapted into this one, or somehow lost in the ether? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see one anywhere, but if you come across it, let me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Must have lost it in some editing process or another. The one you've (?) put together looks good; I'll give it a few tweaks. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Question from OrganicWizard on User talk:OrganicWizard (00:31, 3 June 2025)

Hi, I recently edited the page "Sleep Hygiene" and cited a book for the content I added.

However, my change was reverted by a user couple minutes later. They said I shouldn't add or change content without citing a reliable source.

The book I cited was 'Why We Sleep" by Mathew Walker. I think that's a pretty reliable source?

Please guide me on this. Thanks. --OrganicWizard (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The important part in their edit summary was "for medical content". Medical claims have higher standards of verifiability than most -- which are set out in WP:MEDRS. Essentially, when making a medical claim (which includes any claim about what is or isn't good for you, the link between X factor and Y disease, and so on), we need to cite published, academic summary sources or individual studies. Why We Sleep is a perfectly good book, but it's a mass-market one, not an academic monograph, so doesn't meet those criteria. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis

On 3 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis has been used to explain burial practices in Greece, Australia, Madagascar and Peru? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

SL93 (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 17,753 views (739.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Featured article review notification

I have nominated Bæddel and bædling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I've seen it: will put some thoughts together and drop by. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of Eritha

Congratulations, UndercoverClassicist! The article you nominated, Eritha, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

Congratulations! I meant to review but see that I'm late ;) - Easter Oratorio is now in a state ready for you to continue your review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• +1 Congrats UC. Dracophyllum 06:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you both -- very kind. Gerda: I think Michael is still rounding off; I'll wait for him to conclude, as there's been a lot of polishing done to the article since I last looked at it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  There are few open questions (marked), so a think you can safely look at the lead and history again. But as you like it. No rush, Easter 2026 is in a while ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  There's now only one open question, with change and response. The article will be linked from the main page on 7 June, - if you'd have time to look further it might improve readers' pleasure ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Chalandriani

On 6 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chalandriani, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some bodies at Chalandriani were buried with "frying pans"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chalandriani. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chalandriani), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Question from Fastenerjunkie55 (06:16, 10 June 2025)

Hey I'm trying to create a page for George A. Tinnerman. He invented the first cage nut and held hundred of fastener patents. I think I submitted it. --Fastenerjunkie55 (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello -- would that be this article? It isn't currently submitted, but there's a button at the top you can press to submit it. Good luck with it! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Odyssey

Hi UC. I previously did some work on Odyssey, then sort of lost interest (although my background is in Classical Studies). If you were ever interested (and ahead of Christopher Nolan's upcoming movie), I'm open to collaborating in pursuit of FA. I'm working on another project right now, but should be done with that in a few weeks / month. No worries if your [clay] plate's already full / your [clay] cup overfloweth. I should probably add: I was between semesters when I nominated it for GA. It'll need a bit more work than the GA label suggests. Five years ago, huh – how we grow.

As an aside, if you have any suggestions for the "Roman period" section on my current project, please let me know. My sources seem to only speculate on where Tacitus got his information on the pagans. None provide any evidence when indicating he didn't visit the area.

Thanks for all your brilliant work. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi -- huge admiration to you for taking on Odyssey. It's a really impressive piece of work: I've just given it a read and enjoyed it a great deal. If I could make a suggestion: before you bring it to FAC, open up a peer review. I'll definitely chip in there, and will have a think about some real classicists who are on here and might be worth sending a ping towards.

On Odin -- I must admit to being a serious sceptic that we really know anything about pre-Christian Norse religion -- as you allude, it's tricky to be sure that the nameless/syncretised gods mentioned by Tacitus actually existed, rather than being (at best) the far end of a long chain of Chinese whispers, or (at worst) complete fabrications intended to "show" what the barbarians of the north were really like. Myles Lavan has done some really clever work on the Agricola (which I think extends to the Germania, and really ought to extend to certain key bits of T's longer works), showing that it's not really "about" barbarians at all, but more about what people do when faced with overwhelming, rapacious power and given the choice to resist or acquiesce -- in other words, it's really about how Roman senators faced up to (or failed to face up to) Domitian, which makes all of the "facts" about the Britons suddenly look rather fragile.

There's then the even trickier problem of linking those to the later Norse gods when, to borrow a phrase, we can count all of the pre-Christian sources for those on no hands, and the post-Christian ones have some pretty suspicious details in pretty key places. You'll know this already, of course, but I include it here to suggest that there probably isn't some hidden trove of "reliable" Roman ethnography waiting for you to prise it out of the sources.

On "Tacitus didn't visit the area" -- I'm not sure what evidence for that sort of negative would look like -- but at no point in the Germania does T. claim first-hand knowledge, unlike other ancient ethnographers (particularly Herodotus) who did visit the places they write about. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! In all honesty, I will probably not return to Odyssey as a solo effort (at least anytime soon). It'd be a staggering amount of work to get it to FA—that time would be much more wisely invested in the very rough Iliad. Frankly, I look at the unfinished bullet points in Odyssey's "Legacy" and feel an uncommon desire to become a corn cob. We'll see what the future holds! Since Dracula, I've been contacting scholars on my work. It's possible Emily Wilson, for example, might respond to me (perhaps to to reward my fandom) with some pointers for improvement / omissions.

Regarding what we know (or, rather, don't) about early paganism – completely agreed. I can appreciate an argument for trimming down the size of content on the Germanic Mercury. But scholarship on Odin broadly begin by talking about Tacitus. Such is the extent of this that scholars often comment on how Tacitus frames his early history. I think the best I can probably do is include that big paragraph that casts doubt on the endeavour (from Annette Lassen). I'd be open to strip "Wotan/Wodan" from it, because I strongly doubt it myself, but I don't think it is a choice I could defend, based on the sourcing. Virtually every scholar identifies Wotan/Odin as Mercury in the interpretica romana, even though, as you say, it's possibly distorted whispers all the way...

Regarding "at no point [...] does T. claim first-hand knowledge", that actually is very useful context (I have not read it, or studies of it). I am cutting some corners with the early history because my interest is primarily in main Old Norse corpus. I am very confident that I read a source to the contrary regarding Tacitus, which I'm now struggling to find. I will let you know if I do find it. I'll concentrate on the later, more evidenced periods of Odin's history for now. Thank you for your input—greatly appreciated. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello again! I've made some changes to Odin#Early attestations based on your feedback. Any comments or concerns? Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I had dropped this one -- if still useful, I wouldn't have any major complaints about the factual material there, but would probably be tempted to contextualise the authors (at least) by date and language -- there's a big gap between Herodotus and Tacitus, and Caesar was not exactly a neutral party when it came to Gauls. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Pro Plancio

On 12 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pro Plancio, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Roman lawyer Cicero defended Gnaeus Plancius in 54 BCE, but neither the verdict nor exactly what Plancius was accused of have survived? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pro Plancio. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pro Plancio), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations on this interesting Good Article. Tenpop421 (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Tenpop421 -- that's very kind. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Question from Btomthesus (00:42, 16 June 2025)

Just to confirm this. So you are in London because you are UTC+0 --Btomthesus (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Question from Homage42425 (12:06, 16 June 2025)

Hello UndercoverClassicist - thanks so much for reaching out. I am finishing an article. It is Draft: Harriet Toby. I have a photo to add which is in the public domain. Must I add it to Wikicommons first? I'm asking because I didn't know how to answer all the questions, they are confusing. The photo is within the Ministry of Culture, POP, the open heritage platform (these photos are all in the public domain) and the site provides the information for the Credit. Can you give me some guidance with this. Thank you so much. --Homage42425 (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi -- yup, Commons would be the way to go. If you fill in the fields as best you can and provide the link to the copyright info, I'm sure someone over there would be able to help you format it all correctly (I am on Commons as well, though not anything like as much as here, so happy to see what I can do there). I would imagine that the basic framework you're going for is that this is someone else's work, but in the public domain, and you can point towards something on the source website to back that up. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

History of Christianity

Hi, the FAC is over, but since I intend to resubmit at some point, I am attempting to address your concerns. I wondered if you would be willing to take a look and see if you think Late Antiquity and the crusades have been improved. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777 -- I can see you've put a lot of work in here. If it were to come back to FAC at the moment, I think I'd make most of the same observations as last time around. We're still not quite in sync with the scholarship on Late Antiquity: the section on violence is better, but still leads with e.g. "the murder of Hypatia was not just about religion" without really setting out the aspects which were about religion, or e.g. "Pagans were not all murdered or converted" (emphasis mine) without really setting out the place of murder, forced conversion, state oppression etc in the whole picture. We also use archaeological "proof" in a slightly over-confident way -- it's comparatively unusual to have positive archaeological confirmation of a historical event, even one which was very obvious at the time and has secure historical evidence -- this particularly goes for something like the destruction of a temple, where it's likely that we don't often have an archaeological site securely identified with the specific temple in question. More generally across the article, I still see an over-focus on European Christianity, particularly Catholicism (contrast the very small presence of Orthodoxy throughout), and important omissions or downplayings of the nastier bits of the history, particularly around imperialism, antisemitism and persecution. As I said at the FAC, this article is a huge job and would certainly be beyond my skills to get to FA standard, so I'm impressed by your dedication and how far you've already managed to get it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for answering. You didn't have to, so I am grateful for your willingness to engage. I want to address each of your comments as thoroughly as possible, so I am going to go slowly, taking only one at a time time, if that's okay. I felt pressured at the FAC to move quickly, so I was probably not as comprehensive as needed. I will take the time to do better here - hopefully.

First allow me to address We're still not quite in sync with the scholarship on Late Antiquity. Let me start with a book edited by (Drake, H.A. (Ed.). (2006). Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315235004) because it has essays by several different scholars and is therefore representative of current scholarship.

The book's abstract reads: Violence is virtually synonymous in the popular imagination with the period of the Later Roman empire... But was this period in fact as violent as it has been portrayed? A new generation of scholars has called into question the standard narrative, pointing to evidence of cultural continuity and peaceful interaction... To assess the state of this question, the fifth biennial "Shifting Frontiers" conference was devoted to the theme of "Violence in Late Antiquity".

Page 2 and 3, introduction, written by Drake: Late Antique historians have had to deemphasize the focus on political and military “decline” that dominated earlier scholarship. Hence, the violence that traditionally characterized this period can no longer be taken for granted. Not that anybody is ready to assert that the violence that fills so much of the narrative of these centuries never occurred—that is not the issue. Rather, the question is whether the previous model of “decline and fall” has conditioned us to emphasize those aspects of this age over other indicators suggesting that, ... it is one that functioned much as others have before and since. Was it a more violent time than, say, Rome in the Late Republic or, for that matter, the United States in the 1960s? Was it, in other words, an age of unique violence? ... much of the violence in any period of history is of a sort inherent to this imperfect world in which we live. Might it be that when all things are considered, this period will not seem so much more remarkably violent than many others, including our own? Perhaps scholars living in a world that has witnessed wars unparalleled in their destructiveness, technologies and ideologies put to the service of religious and ethnic annihilation, and its own waves of urban unrest should at least pause before accepting the judgments that have been passed on Late Antique violence.

Skipping on down to part IV - Religious violence - pages 8 - 10 ... pagan-Christian conflict [has] long dominated our thinking about the process of Christianization in the Late Antique world. But closer inspection has frequently modified, if not overturned, the conflict model...

and on page 9 Michele Salzman leads off with a look at pagan-Christian clashes in the western empire. Paying special attention to the circumstances ... she draws new conclusions... I will come back to detailing these.

Daniel Sarefield takes another Christian adaptation of pagan precedent as his subject in “Bookburning in the Christian Roman Empire.” Whether conducted by pagans or Christians, Sarefield observes, “destruction by fire was a forceful statement of power by those involved.” But when the pagan rite of expiation became Christian it turned into a form of “sacralized violence” ...

David Riggs’s “Christianizing the Rural Communities of Late Roman Africa: A Process of Coercion or Persuasion?” finds evidence in local records for both diversity and toleration, and concludes, much as Salzman did, that persuasion played the more significant role in the religious transformation of Roman Africa.

Amelia Brown comes to a similar conclusion for Greece in “Hellenic Heritage and Christian Challenge: Conflict over Panhellenic Sanctuaries in Late Antiquity.” Both literary sources and archaeology have been interpreted to show a sudden end to pagan cult and the much later new start of Christian cult at festival sites, but with the help of new archaeological discoveries and other literary sources, Brown has charted a more gradual shift in the use of these sites—a “progressive conversion” characterized more by competition than conflict.

When attention shifts to the volatile city of Alexandria, the results are more mixed. Carlos Galvao-Sobrinho looks at unrest within the Christian community in “Popular Mobilization and Violence in Alexandria in the Early Arian Controversy.” Drawing on the work of anthropologists, he argues that competition between the followers of Arius and those of Bishop Alexander became so intense in the course of the fourth century because argument over the nature of the Christian “Big Other” had a direct effect on the way followers constructed their own identities. But Alexandria was a volatile city. A century after Arius, Christian violence had turned outward. In “The Murder of Hypatia: Acceptable or Unacceptable Violence?” Edward Watts dissects three different accounts of this shocking homicide and shows how each author constructed the story in a way that would lead readers to justify or condemn the action. From the exercise, Watts extracts standards used to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate acts of violence. I will come back to Hypatia and your comment on how much religion was an aspect of what happened - because it does seem likely - though it is likely to have happened even without the influence of religion.

In a concluding essay, Martin Zimmermann compares the level of violence in Late Antiquity with that of other periods before and after, and cautions against accepting evidence of violence at face value, without taking into account the motivations and historical context of the author or artist. When such conditions are considered, he concludes that well into Late Antiquity there was no increase in the level of violence, and in some ways an actual decrease.

I will come back with more demonstrating the state of current scholarship because, if you are going to comment on FAC I need you to be fully informed, but I'm concerned about overwhelming you to the point where you don't read any of it. So I will stop for now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I appreciate your efforts, but this is the same as we had at the last FAC -- of course, different sources have different views, so of course we can find sources for a particular perspective, especially on a gigantic topic where just about every available view has been put into print at some point. In general, the article is often arguing that such-and-such a phenomenon wasn't as "bad" as previously thought, but gets to that point before setting out the "previously thought" position, which has the unintended (?) consequence of slipping from "not as bad as previously thought" into "not bad". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Every available view is not what's out there. I am not finding sources from a particular perspective. Why would you assume that? For the last two years, I have researched and read everything I could find on 'religious violence in Late Antiquity' because of the changes taking place in the field of study. I am just finding quality sources - whatever they say.

The article doesn't "slip" from "not as bad as previously thought" into "not bad" unintentionally, it's intentional, since 'not bad' is the conclusion the majority have reached. I am, however, asking myself if you are right that I have not spent sufficient time explaining that transition. Originally, I had more on tradition, then cut it. I am considering replacing it, but I can't find a guideline in the MOS for: How much time and space should be spent on a previous theory that has been displaced? Does it qualify as a minority view? I need to know and can't find it.

But - perhaps that's moot if, instead, I take the slightly different approach found in this article: (Mayer, Wendy. "Religious Violence in Late Antiquity: Current approaches, trends and issues." Religious Violence in the Ancient World: From Classical Athens to Late Antiquity (2020): 251-265.)

Pages 2-3: ...in the past scholars had largely accepted that narrated violence reflects historical reality, ... we are now asking ‘was the violence real?’, then we also need to ask ‘was it really religious?’... two trends are emerging ... One is to seek a clearer definition of religious violence and, ... [and] unpack the assumptions... The other trend concerns a call to be more methodologically particular ... with the relationship between rhetoric and reality (reported and actual violence).

Jump to page 10: ... in the context of Late Antiquity there has been considerable discussion to date concerning the nature and definition of religious violence and whether we can say that, as a category, it existed. ... whether...religion existed or not as a distinct category in Late Antiquity matters. A second is whether religious violence is distinctive as a phenomenon and can be separated from all other forms of violence. A third is what does or does not belong under the category ‘religious violence’...

... [a] major trend in the exploration of religious violence in Late Antiquity has made progress in the decoupling of the rhetoric of religious violence from the historical reality... some violence may have occurred, but ... the origin of the violence is not religious. In addition to Steve Mason’s analysis in this volume of two massacres reported by Josephus, the recent claim by Hans Teitler that, in the few cases of Christian deaths under Julian that can be verified, these can be attributed to a legitimate ruling of treason is indicative. Emerging from the results of these kinds of studies is a Late Antiquity in which religious violence was more local and sporadic than the narrated violence suggests, in addition to being misattributed or over-reported.

Page 9: Since the result of interrogating the extent to which narrated violence reports historical reality tends to be reductionist, one response has been to ignore the historical reality altogether to focus solely on the rhetoric. The kinds of questions asked of the texts in this approach concern the purpose of the narrated violence, resulting in an emphasis on discerning authorial intention. The assumption here is that the narrated violence is intended to produce in the hearers a particular way of viewing themselves in relation to other religious groups in the world around them. Broadly speaking, the way these texts are approached is thus from the perspective of identity production.

Page 10 - There is a third path, however, which is just starting to emerge. The pursuit here is not to view rhetoric as a record of violence (past action), but to explore to what extent the rhetoric of violence produces violence (future action). This moves the scholar away from the often impossible task of determining to what extent the reported memory is real or false or manipulated or flawed. In this approach the rhetoric of violence becomes a thing in itself, separate from the author’s intention, and focus rests on the agency of the rhetoric. This is the intent of Marcos’ study of reported iconoclasm in hagiography. She concludes that the stories functioned as exemplars that subtly encouraged the use of violence in the conversion process. Michael Gaddis had earlier concluded that stories of martyrdom and resistance provided a rationalisation and justification ‘for zealous action enacting the anger of God against enemies of the faith’. (footnote 57: Gaddis, ‘There is No Crime’, etc. ...in his view the justification for violence occurred after rather than before the fact. That is, the rhetoric of violence validates violence that is already occurring. See especially his conclusion (pp. 323–41), where, it is to be noted, the role the rhetoric of violence played is linked to identity production. This is different from viewing the rhetoric as actively producing violence.) ...this causal relationship — violent rhetoric producing violent action — proves difficult to demonstrate. ... it is usually simpler to prove the opposite — that narrated violence does or, more often, does not reflect actual historical violence.

I think it might be beneficial to incorporate some of this. I like its description of three paths, and I am thinking of adopting its multi-question approach - in combination with more on what's traditional - but I've read that WP doesn't approve of posing questions. Is that correct? What do you think would best reflect this survey of current scholarship without breaking any rules? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot here, and honestly I don't think I'm in a position to do the kind of co-authoring the subject and sources would really require. I'd be looking at the late antique section outside the subsection on religious violence as well: for instance, there are a couple of elephants left in the room by Aside from the Visigothic Kingdom, Jews and Christians peacefully coexisted, for the most part, into the High Middle Ages (what happened under the Visigoths, and what is elided by "for the most part"?). The characterisation of Even as the Huns, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Vandals caused havoc in the Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries is also a little strange: we're simultaneously being very revisionist on religious violence and very traditionalist, perhaps even conservative, on regular violence. As your sources above note, most historians nowadays don't characterise late antiquity as a period of widespread havoc induced by marauding barbarian armies. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Those aren't elephants. Elephants are main points, they are not supporting details. You clearly got the main point from what is there. It's implied in the sentence that Jews and Christians did not live together peacefully in the Visigothic kingdom. You saw that - that the Visigothic kingdom was an exception - not all of the why or how about it, but you could clearly see that it was an exception or you wouldn't have asked what you did.

The how and why are among the many supporting details that got edited out when AirshipJungleman was working so hard to make the article more concise. This sentence seemed adequate to him, and I agreed, because it had become clear to me that it was over-ridingly important to differentiate between main points and supporting details. Supporting details on every topic cannot be in this article, because this particular article must be a broad overview. Details are in the many, many sub-articles. Think how long this article would be if all supporting details were included.

Barbarians sacked Rome three times, raided the edges of the empire repeatedly, and contributed to the downfall of the empire. That's not a supporting detail. Simply saying they became Christian would be misleading.

I don't see how your characterization of being revisionist is a fair one. Current scholars may be, but all I am doing is attempting to report what they say. You say that you are not qualified to co-author. That just makes me wonder if you can fairly say you have read and researched enough to know what the majority view truly is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

As in the FAC, I'm not sure we're going to agree here. I think I've said what I can on the article, so I hope your work on it goes well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility. Thank you for that. I do feel we need a consensus of some kind or I'm going to be stuck pursuing content-dispute tactics. I would rather come to a meeting of the minds between the two of us. That seems more "Wikipedean" to me. It's doable if we stick to the sources and put personal feelings aside. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I must say I am disappointed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Olga Lander WWII.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Question from Pr.Petre (14:32, 17 June 2025)

Hi. --Pr.Petre (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

New message from Vanderwaalforces

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Jens Lallensack § Regarding GAN for Udagbedo. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Question from Homage42425 (01:36, 22 June 2025)

Hi there... No need to respond to my prior email. I figured it out! --Homage42425 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Question from TeaButterfly (01:54, 24 June 2025)

Hi UndercoverClassicist

I am trying to edit this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kats-Chernin However I can't figure out how to change the 'works' section. It is based on a template. Your advice would be appreciated.

Thank you TeaButterfly --TeaButterfly (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2025

• News and notes: Happy 7 millionth!
  Admins arrested in Belarus.

• In the media: Playing professor pong with prosecutorial discretion
  Pardon our alliteration!

• Disinformation report: Pardon me, Mr. President, have you seen my socks?
  A get-out-of-jail card!

• Recent research: Wikipedia's political bias; "Ethical" LLMs accede to copyright owners' demands but ignore those of Wikipedians
  And other new research publications.

• Traffic report: All Sinners, a future, all Saints, a past
  Holy men and not-as-holy movies.

• News from Diff: Call for candidates is now open: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
  Get your self-nomination in by July 2nd!

• Opinion: Russian Wiki-fork flails, failing readers and editors
  After two years RuWiki fails to thrive.

• Debriefing: EggRoll97's RfA² debriefing
  With some sweet-and-sour sauce!

• Community view: A Deep Dive Into Wikimedia (part 3)
  Every thing you need to know about the Wikimedia Foundation?

• Comix: Hamburgers
  Egad!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Question from Ahsyegeh (04:13, 24 June 2025)

How can I draft my own article --Ahsyegeh (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your own Article, do you mean how can you create a draft for a new article?. Destinyokhiria 💬 13:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

June music

story · music · places

I have Easter Oratorio on the main page, but of course told the story, which is admittedly complex, on Easter Sunday for the music's 300th anniversary. - Thank you for reviewing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Stravinsky pictured on his birthday + Vienna pics - but too many who died + I have a "defiant" cantata up for GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

too many died, see my story and listen to Comfort ye (sung in German) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

While you are of course invited to check out my recommendations any day, today offers unusually a great writer of novels, music with light and a place with exquisite food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Funeral Oration (Lysias)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Funeral Oration (Lysias) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Funeral Oration (Lysias)

The article Funeral Oration (Lysias) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Funeral Oration (Lysias) and Talk:Funeral Oration (Lysias)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 69

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 69, May–June 2025

In this issue we highlight a new partnership, Citation Watchlist and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Funeral Oration (Lysias)

The article Funeral Oration (Lysias) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Funeral Oration (Lysias) for comments about the article, and Talk:Funeral Oration (Lysias)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations UndercoverClassicist on this GA. I refrained from taking up the review given my prior suggestions. I suppose you’ll be bringing Funeral Oration to FAC.

By the way, my GA nomination for Fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales has been up for quite some time now. Your suggestions at the GA review would be appreciated, if possible. No worries if not. Keep contributing as you do.MSincccc (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That's kind; thank you. Neither fashion nor royals are really my area, unfortunately, but I'm sure someone with more expertise will come along in time. I've personally found the GA pipeline slower than usual of late, but things do generally seem to be moving through it eventually. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

TFA

Hi UC. I am planning to run Eritha as the TFA on 23 August. Do you fancy having a go at the draft blurb? Or would you rather I did? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gog -- will put something together. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks UC. Let me know where it is once you have. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I've made a start here. Chewing over which, if any, image to include -- I'm not sure the current lead image is a good idea, as it'll be tricky to give the necessary context so that readers don't think it's a portrait of Eritha specifically. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Remember there is a hard limit of 1,025 characters including spaces, so you still have c. 190 to trim. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I think we're on target now, by the crude measure of copy-pasting it into Word? I don't know if there's a nice inbuilt script to do the counting for us? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

There probably is, but I also copy and paste into Word to get the character count. 941 - looking good. (There is also a hard minimum, 925.) Image: the much reduced new character count gives us a little scope for a lengthy caption. I would have thought that the current lead image and caption - "Fresco from Mycenae probably depicting a goddess or priestess" - would work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I've stuck that in. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out. I think we're done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from Dombotexino (06:21, 3 July 2025)

Hi there, I would like to add a story about a cake artist in Hong Kong to Wikipedia --Dombotexino (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Eritha scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 12 August 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• July 9–15 - Call for candidates
• July 18–22 - Discussion phase
• July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from Linearity-Curve (18:12, 9 July 2025)

Hello,

I came here to create my company page. There was one page before, but I need to create a new one.

I created the first draft and sent it to review. But what is your suggestion about company pages? --Linearity-Curve (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Mayerberg continued

As I stated on the Commons discussion, I received this response to an Email I sent to the Truman Library asking about the copyright status of the photo:

Your inquiry to the Truman Library was forwarded to my attention. The copyright/public domain status of the photos in our collection differs and largely depends upon who took the photograph.

I believe the photo you are referring to is here: https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/photograph-records/60-313-09. It was taken by a Truman Library employee. The work of federal employees is in the public domain, therefore this photograph is in the public domain.

Truman Library states its public domain for the federal employee reason. Roast (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I think there's a way of uploading those emails (perhaps via certain volunteers -- my knowledge/memory of the process is hazy) and attaching them to the image's entry: that could then be used to substantiate a licence tag that states it's PD as the work of a federal employee. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm a dumbass and deleted the Email already. I'll get a second response now. Roast (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

So I received the response but don't know how to attach them either. Roast (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from MassSpecEdits (14:23, 13 July 2025)

Thanks! I am trying to help update information regarding the subject "mass spectrometry" as I have noticed most information on wiki is not up to date. I would appreciate if you can guide me as to what would be the best approach. I am trying to add new pages, update existing pages, and add as much accurate and new information as possible to make the relevant wiki pages serve as strong source of information. --MassSpecEdits (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello -- in general, it's easiest to start by improving existing articles rather than creating new ones. The overarching piece of advice is be bold, and discuss things with other editors if they revert your changes or disagree with them. Make sure that material you add or changed is cited to reliable sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from JeremyJe29 (00:46, 15 July 2025)

Hello! I want to add citations to my drafts, but what if my draft is about something that doesn't have many, or no sources? Can I use Wikipedia as a source? --JeremyJe29 (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello -- the first test for whether an article about a topic can be on Wikipedia is whether it has reliable sources written about it. The usual litmus test is that there should be at least three sources that everyone agrees are published, detailed, reliable and have no conflict of interest (for example, they're not written by someone connected to the subject of the article). Additionally, it should be possible to verify everything in the article by referring to such a source. Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source, because anyone can edit it, so we have no way of verifying that the information in it is notable or correct. If there simply aren't enough sources to write a thoroughly sourced article on something, Wikipedia probably isn't the place for it, though it might be possible to add information about it to an existing article, or there might be another site better suited for it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from Choni Sangay dema on Talk:Hybe Corporation (15:41, 16 July 2025)

How can I participate --Choni Sangay dema (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from Choni Sangay dema on Talk:Hybe Corporation (15:43, 16 July 2025)

My name is Choni Sangay Dema, I’m 14 years old, and I come from the beautiful country of Bhutan. Ever since I was young, I’ve loved dancing and performing. I used to dance at home and participate in school events whenever I could being on stage made me feel alive.

Becoming a K-pop idol is not just a dream for me, it’s my passion and goal. I want to inspire people with my performance, make my parents proud, and represent my country on the global stage. I believe in working hard, staying humble, and never giving up. I’m confident, adaptable, and always ready to learn and improve.

I speak English and I’m open to learning Korean and other languages to connect with fans around the world. I can sing, dance, and I’m willing to do anything it takes to grow into a talented and respectful artist.

Thank you.. --Choni Sangay dema (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | Instructions for candidates

Administrator Elections | Instructions for candidates

Thank you for choosing to run in the July 2025 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• July 16–17: Housekeeping phase (we are here)
• July 18–22: Discussion phase
• July 23–29: SecurePoll voting phase
• July 30–c. August 3: Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the Housekeeping phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend this phase getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.

The discussion phase will take place from July 18–22. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). You are strongly encouraged to be around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.

On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your vote total during the election.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time. This phase took approximately four days during the October 2024 election, but could take up to a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must have received at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose). Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.

You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the July 2025 administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the July 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• July 18–22 - Discussion phase (we are here)
• July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
• July 30–c. Aug 3 - Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Discussion phase.

On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2025

• News and notes: Is no WikiNews good WikiNews? — Election season returns!
  Endowment tax form, Wikimania, elections, U4C, fundraising and a duck!

• In the media: How bad (or good) is Wikipedia?
  And how do we know?

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Medicine reaches milestone of zero unreferenced articles
  Five-year journey comes to healthy fruition.

• In focus: Wikimania 2025: Connecting Wikimedians across the world for 20 years
  Wikimedians from around the world will gather in person and online at the twentieth annual meeting of Wikimania.

• Recent research: Knowledge manipulation on Russia's Wikipedia fork; Marxist critique of Wikidata license; call to analyze power relations of Wikipedia
  As well as "hermeneutic excursions" and other scientific research findings.

• News from the WMF: Form 990 released for the Wikimedia Foundation’s fiscal year 2023-2024
  The report covers the Foundation's operations from July 2023 - June 2024

• Discussion report: Six thousand noticeboard discussions in 2025 electrically winnowed down to a hundred
  A step towards objective and comprehensive coverage of a project nearly too big to follow.

• Comix: Divorce
  Drawn this century!

• Opinion: Women are somewhat under-represented on the English-language Wikipedia, and other observations from analysis
  How data from the Wikipedia "necessary articles" lists can shed new light on the gender gap

• Community view: A Deep Dive Into Wikimedia (part 4): The Future Of Wikimedia and Conclusion
  Annual plans, external trends, infrastructure, equity, safety, and effectiveness. What does it all mean?

• Obituary: Pvmoutside, Atomicjohn, Rdmoore6, Jaknouse, Morven, Martin of Sheffield, MarnetteD, Herewhy, BabelStone
  Rest in peace.

• Traffic report: God only knows
  Wouldn't it be nice without billionaires, scandals, deaths, and wars?

• Humour: New forum created for people who don't care about Wikipedia
  If you are too blasé for Mr. Blasé and don't give a FAC.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from Dale Whitehurst (miracle man) (22:26, 20 July 2025)

Dale Whitehurst (miracle man)'s mentor Ultraodan is away.

all fact checked --Dale Whitehurst (miracle man) (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello -- is this about your user page? As QwertyForest said to you a week ago, I'm afraid Wikipedia probably isn't the place for the content you're trying to write: user pages are not supposed to be detailed autobiographies, even if what's written in them is fact-checked, and user pages of that form are likely to be deleted. Perhaps a blog or a something similar would be a better place for your story? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Quick note re: Erlitou

I noticed the GA review of Erlitou is still open — just thought I’d ask if you’re planning to close it soon. No rush at all; just checking in as it's been a little while. Cheers! MSincccc (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not, particularly -- the article isn't on hold; it has things still to do to meet the criteria, but they're well within Generalissima's capacities and I'm sure she will get to them. It's normal enough for a GA review to stay open for a long time (and indeed there are still unreviewed GAs that were nominated in 2024) -- I can't see that closing it as unsuccessful for the benefit of making the backlog look better would be a good idea. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh gosh! I completely forgot that one was still open. I'll get back to it today, my apologies. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

And now passed -- nice work! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Commendation

I read your article on Arne Furumark — really well put together, and I enjoyed it. Congratulations as well on your RfA nomination. I look forward to any future collaboration, and hope you’ll continue with your excellent contributions. MSincccc (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

That's very kind of you to say -- thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in the question & discussion phase of AELECT2025

I'm certain many others feel the same way. I appreciate your putting yourself forward, answering questions (including mine) with candor, and demonstrating BOLD while still maintaining AGF. Thank you, and good luck to you in the next phase. We've certainly learned more about all the candidates during the last few days. BusterD (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started and continues until July 29 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• July 23–29 – Voting phase
• July 30–c. Aug 3 – Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for approximately four days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Peanut gallery note on GAN review

Hi UndercoverClassicist, just saw Talk:Laconian (dog)/GA1 and have a couple of concerns regarding the general comments. I hope this is not DNTTR. Regarding MOS:LEADCITE, there's nothing specifically against using citations in the lead even though it is uncommon, the actual issue is with information (and thus usually citations unless there are two different ones) being exclusively in the lead. I would focus on exclusivity rather than figuring out whether they should be in the lead at all at GAN. Secondly, regarding "All facts need to be cited no later than the end of the sentence", that is an oversimplification. What is important is WP:INTEGRITY, which usually but not always coincides with the end of the sentence. A common exception is where two consecutive sentences follow the same source. In discussions at WT:GAN we have converged towards advising that citations are used at least before the end of the paragraph, to accommodate different ways to meet INTEGRITY (exceptions for mathematical formulas where the source is otherwise obvious, quotes, other things which technically aren't paragraphs but might be considered as such, etc.). We also do not require ALTTEXT for images, although of course it is nice to have. I think this is the nominator's first GAN, so I appreciate you taking it on and the note about page numbers. Best, CMD (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Good comment -- the sentence/paragraph thing was a complete brainfart -- now fixed.

On the others -- you are right that LEADCITE doesn't forbid citations in the lead, but the bigger problem here was that information should be repeated in the body, and cited there. Perhaps it would have been clearer to lead with that. Slightly outside the GA criteria, the density of citations in the lead was affecting readability, which does start to come up against Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. If the nominator feels that having citations in the lead is important for some reason, we can work with that. As it is, their solution was to move the material into the body, which means that I need to give them a slightly different steer to hit MOS:LEAD (which is a requirement).

Similarly, while we don't require alt text, personally I think "should include" (as distinct from "must include") is reasonable -- perhaps could have phrased as "it would be good to..." or similar. Obviously, it wouldn't be a failing matter if the nominator desperately wanted to leave it out, but I think it's also useful to flag a straighforward opportunity to improve the article. In my initial comments, I usually point out things which can be improved fairly easily even when they're not strictly required to get the article to GA (and leave them as moot if the nominator decides not to act on them), though I understand that different people have different approaches.

Thanks for chipping in -- wise comments on all points. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

That all makes sense. I recently went through a GAN where the reviewer asked for alt text on some images where it was missing and some source formatting. I'm happy to do it myself, but was wary here as this was a new nominator. We've had a few issues with reviews being seen as too much work, and it has been theorised that reviews that go beyond the requirements create the impression that other reviews also need to do this. Obviously this is a system problem, not something that an individual GAN is going to make or break. General advice is to clearly phrase additional easy improvements as "slightly beyond GA criteria, but would be an improvement to the article" or similar. I generally agree on alt text, but that is specifically an issue where there has been discussion that did not reach consensus to make it a requirement. Maybe it will change one day, although making accessible language a more explicit part of FACR recently failed too. CMD (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

All very sensible. From the GA reviews I've been on the other side of, it's usual to suggest a few things which wouldn't necessarily be essential to promote the article, and personally I think that's to the good as long as it's in moderation and everyone involved is clear that these are just suggestions. Clear phrasing is definitely an advantage, though, and you're right to flag that mine might have been murky, particularly for a first-time nominator. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Funeral Oration (Lysias)

On 23 July 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Funeral Oration (Lysias), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the ancient Greek orator Lysias wrote a "Funeral Oration", but may have been forbidden from delivering it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Funeral Oration (Lysias). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Funeral Oration (Lysias)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this interesting DYK and new Good Article! Tenpop421 (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Alison Frantz

Just curious. Why is there nothing on her personal life such as husbands, partners, children, etc? MisawaSakura (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

There would be nothing to report -- she never married. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. She probably had some sort of personal life but was quiet about it. Thanks though. MisawaSakura (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

A psephos for you

I have cast my vote in support of your appointment as one of the new Galactic Overlords. Use your death rays wisely. Choliamb (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from PaulMcfarty1942 (08:16, 27 July 2025)

Hii I tried to add a date that a man was born he was a very famous wizard and it took it down. Why? --PaulMcfarty1942 (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from PaulMcfarty1942 (08:18, 27 July 2025)

Umm never mind it was kept😋 --PaulMcfarty1942 (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from Pritam0612 on User:Pritam0612/sandbox (17:26, 27 July 2025)

My submission got rejected May I know the reason --Pritam0612 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello -- it looks as though the "declined" box was added in this edit, which you made. Is this page a copy of a draft article made elsewhere?

If not (or if that question doesn't make any sense), the article hasn't been rejected, but also hasn't been submitted for consideration. To submit it, copy the code into the Article Wizard, once you've answered the preliminary questions. You will need to delete the bit at the top reading {{AFC submission|d|ts=20250728120000}}.

If it has been submitted through Articles for Creation, you can look at the page history of the draft page to tell you who declined the submission, and that will probably have some information as to why (but see below).

As a word of warning -- in its current state, the article will almost certainly be declined. This is because it doesn't yet have enough references to sources independent of the subject to demonstrate that this person meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Generally, this means a reasonable number of independent, quality publications, not written by the subject or anyone connected to them (e.g. an employer), which discuss the person and their importance. In theory, everything in the article should be cited to a source like that, so that we can establish that it is verifiable. This is particularly important given that the article is about a living person, so stricter standards apply. If you're closely connected to the subject, the further warning applies that writing about yourself or a friend is rarely a good idea, and often something that people come to regret, since the article leaves their control the moment it is published.

I hope this helps -- let me know if you need any help with any of that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Karo

I bought my copy of Greek Personality in Archaic Sculpture for £4 at Heffer's in Cambridge in 1984, mostly because it was marked down from £18.95. I wish I could say that in the forty years since I have got my money's worth out of it, but I don't think I have. Choliamb (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Poor old Karo. I do wonder what he would have made of his own scholarly legacy -- I used Schachtgräber for part of my MPhil (and briefly got very good at very niche bits of German like Späthelladischer silbereingelegter Schwertklinge) and it's still the reference if you want to do any kind of detailed work on Schliemann's finds, but I doubt he would have expected or particularly wanted a catalogue of someone else's dig to be his defining contribution. As your fellow traveller Jack Davis pointed out, perhaps a bit unkindly, he came accompanied by great fanfare and expectation but never really seems to have lived up to it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Furumark

Just out of curiousity, did you purchase/gain access to the books you have cited on Furumark's article or is it available for free? I would like to have a look. I look forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

(Almost) everything cited here is available online, at least as far as I cited it -- usually via Internet Archive and/or TWL. Several sources (about four, from memory) were found for me by the kind folks at WP:RX. For the list of Furumark's own works, I used bibliographic references but didn't necessarily have access to the text. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Euthymides

The article Euthymides you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Euthymides for comments about the article, and Talk:Euthymides/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AmazingAce123 -- AmazingAce123 (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

Congratulations! - Check out my talk, - if you have little time, listen to Gilda Cruz-Romo in the final scene of Aida, if you have more read her article, and if you have still more check out my music, some sung with me in choir, some played by friends, all heard with friends. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations to the election! - Jahrhundertring remembered today, with the picture of a woman who can't believe what she has to see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Spyridon Marinatos, "about yet another Greek archaeologist, I'm afraid. Marinatos, for better or worse, dominated Greek archaeology for much of his life: he is best remembered for his excavation of the "prehistoric Pompeii" site of Akrotiri, and his associated theories about the Minoan eruption, but had several other high-profile turns, particularly the discovery of the battlefield of Thermopylae. He was in charge of the Greek Archaeological Service during two periods of dictatorship -- that of Ioannis Metaxas and the Regime of the Colonels -- and used his influence to shape the institutions of Greek archaeology in his own image, which included taking aggressive steps to push out leftists, women, and people who disagreed with him. Marinatos was a fascinating if not particularly pleasant character, and not always an easy one to write about -- he inspired huge loyalty in many of those who knew him, and some of his students remain prominent in Greek archaeology today, but has also attracted huge criticism for his enthusiastic support of Metaxas and the nastiest parts of the Regime of the Colonels, and for undoing decades of institutional progress in Greek archaeology to serve his own ego and political ends."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning, RD and DYK, - see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

On Bach's day of death, I decorated my user pages in memory, with his music, and my story ends on "peace". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from Wendy645 on Help:Getting started (22:40, 31 July 2025)

Established --Wendy645 (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

A baton for you!

The admin baton

Per ancient tradition, it is my great pleasure to pass on this baton to you, as Jlwoodwa did to me. This baton is a reminder that somehow, amid edit wars, sockpuppets, and the occasional llama photo tiger stamp on Talk pages, we still build the internet's most ambitious group project. Wear it like a cape, or at least don't drop it. Enjoy it and then pass it on to the next AELECT admin as soon as you can! SMasonGarrison 04:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Another Protoattic stand from Karo's collection

Dropping this here so as not to clutter up the FAC discussion any further. I went back and looked through my photos of pottery from a trip to Berlin ten years ago and I found this handsome Protoattic stand, also attributed to the Polyphemos Painter, and also originally in the collection of Aeginetan pottery acquired by Karo. According to Morris it too was lost during the war, but it was certainly on display in 2014! I uploaded a couple of details as well as this photo of the whole thing. If you prefer the drawing of the Menelas stand, fine, but perhaps an image of an actual ancient object (rather than a modern drawing) would be a better choice. This is the best preserved of the Protoattic stands in the collection, and it would certainly give readers a clearer sense of what is meant by "stand". I'll leave it to you to decide. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I've tried something a bit different -- we mentioned the Menelas stand in text, so I've kept it but stuck the new stand in as a multiple image below. It felt like that area of the article was looking a bit sparse anyway, and this helps to fill it up. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

"He who does not keep peace shall lose his hand."

	The axe of responsibility
	Shiny new tools might be used to mete out justice, mercy or a dose of reality. Let us commit to not losing our cool when using them. Our only armor is the entire community's trust. We wear it for each other, each new contributor, and each new generation to come. May you ever be the community's champion. BusterD (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Here's your free T-shirt!

Congratulations on the new mop Andre🚐 20:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Well done! If there's ever anything I can do to help, you know where to find me :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Congratulations UndercoverClassicist! I am pretty sure that you'll become a great administrator. Cheers! Fade258 (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations, UC, on becoming an administrator. I’m sure you’ll keep contributing just as well with the badge on. Cheers! MSincccc (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations, UC! Hard to think of another editor I'd like to see more with mop in hand! ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

All your work at ERRORS is appreciated, and this is a real upgrade for all of us. Well done! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all! I'll try not to knock the mop-bucket over. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Well done on getting the mop! - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from PurposePR (16:14, 5 August 2025)

Hi there! I wanted to request help creating a wikipedia page for a notable figure. --PurposePR (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Most people start off their editing by working to improve existing pages: there can be a little bit of a learning curve in picking up the house style and how the Wiki software works.

If/when you do decide to create a new article from scratch, the place to go is Articles for Creation, where you can write it as a draft, receive help on it and have it reviewed for publication when it's ready. First of all, you will need to work out whether the person it is about meets our various notability guidelines, which set out the rules for what can and can't have a page on this site. For biographies, your best bet is usually to show either of two things:

• The person has been recognised as one of the top people in their field: for example, international sportspeople, widely reviewed authors, or holders of prestigious academic chairs. There are various specific criteria that depend on exactly what the person in question does or did.
• Multiple serious, independent, reliable sources have published articles discussing the person and their work in detail (not simply mentioning it, citing it, or talking about it in passing).

If the article's subject doesn't pass one of these criteria, it's likely to be nominated for deletion and removed. There are plenty of people who are doing great things and will have articles, but simply haven't yet received enough coverage in published sources for us to write an article about them. If the article's subject is a woman, the Women in Red project might be interested in helping out -- they do a lot of work creating new articles on previously-unrecognised women. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Kbowl on The Light (1919 film) (19:49, 5 August 2025)

How do I make a panel for the information. --Kbowl (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello -- do you mean an infobox, like you see at the side of this article? There are various templates for that: have a look at this page to get you started. The usual practice is to use the infobox for information that's already stated (and cited to reliable sources) in the text of the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from Kbowl on The Light (1919 film) (20:24, 5 August 2025)

How do I add an info box? --Kbowl (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kbowl: Hello again! See my reply to you above. Did you get anywhere with that help page? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For putting in the labour following the WT:GAN discussion. Thank you for your time and work. – ImaginesTigers 21:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from Kbowl on The Light (1919 film) (21:13, 5 August 2025)

How do I insert an image? --Kbowl (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from Heri Mwita on User:Heri Mwita/sandbox (16:54, 6 August 2025)

Hi, how do I change the name of this article, User:Heri Mwita/Sandbox --Heri Mwita (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 August 2025

• News and notes: Court order snips out part of Wikipedia article, editors debate whether to frame shreds or pulp them
  Plus a mysterious CheckUser incident, and the news with Wikinews.

• Discussion report: News from ANI, AN, RSN, BLPN, ELN, FTN, and NPOVN
  A review of June, July and August.

• Disinformation report: The article in the most languages
  Who is this guy?

• Community view: News from the Villages Pump
  Threads since June.

• In the media: Disgrace, dive bars, deceased despots, and diverse dispatches
  And slop.

• Crossword: Accidental typography
  It's not a conlang, it's a crossword puzzle.

• Comix: best-laid schemes o' wikis an' men
  gang aft agley, an' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, for promis'd joy!

• Traffic report: I'm not the antichrist or the Superman
  Everybody's Somebody's Fool.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from 5M4A11 (23:54, 7 August 2025)

Hi new mentor, I have a question. Last week I sent a reply on his/her Talk page to an editor (Code Tracker I think) who reversed an edit I made last January. I believe the decision is in error because there wasn't enough information available to make the right decision. I offered a strong case to allow my edit but have not heard back. I asked him/ her to bring the page in line with guidelines with respect to living persons as I have a personal interest in the right outcome. What should I do now? Make the edit again and then respond in Talk to that new editor who without the documentation and detail I offered will make the same decision. Or is there some better way to proceed? I need to follow through on this until this entry is right. Thanks so much. --5M4A11 (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello -- there's no user by that name, so I can't immediately find the dispute you're talking about. In general, the process for handling contentious edits is be bold, revert, discuss -- so, once your edit is reverted, post on the article's talk page with the rationale and seek consensus for it. If you need more input, there are options like seeking a third opinion or entering into dispute resolution. Simply restoring the reverted material without a discussion is likely to end up as edit warring, which is disruptive and doesn't solve the issue.

On another note I asked him/ her to bring the page in line with guidelines with respect to living persons as I have a personal interest in the right outcome. Does this mean that you have a close connection with the person(s) in question? In general, it's a bad idea to write an article about yourself or someone you know well, and people who do so often end up disappointed, as you lose control of the article and its content the moment it is published. There is help and advice available if you are the subject of an article which you think has problems or is incorrect. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Good Article Gazette, Issue 1

Issue 1, 8 August 2025

Ongoing discussions

• On Good Article Reassessments
• Mentorship but for helping editors create/nominate good articles
• GARs in need of participation

News

• Good article review pledges have been established;
• Spot checking references will remain a requirement for GAN reviews
• The next Backlog Drive will be in October 2025. After that, they will be organised every February, June, and October.

Current statistics

• Number of GAs: 42,304
• Number of nominations: 814
• GAs for reassessment: 89

• Review an article!
• Participate in review circles
• Acquire a mentor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from Keyllasantoss (17:47, 9 August 2025)

Como faço pra participar? --Keyllasantoss (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from Tanu94 (18:44, 9 August 2025)

Hello how to make Tanu94 to Wikipedia --Tanu94 (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from Magnolia987 (08:49, 10 August 2025)

Hi, how can I access a comprehensive list of reliable websites for citation, please? I've received feedback about the unacceptable sources I used in some of my previous edits and want to ensure I get it right this time. --Magnolia987 (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! A full list of all the reliable sources out there would be quite a thing, but as you can imagine, it would be an impossible task to put together -- and would be out of date the moment it was published.

When evaluating the reliability of a source, there are a few general rules:

• Most importantly -- what quality-assurance process has the source been through? Something in an elite academic journal will have undergone a lot of editorial oversight, peer review, strict selection and so on, while a blog or social media post can be published without a second person ever seeing it. The more experts have been able to check over it, the better.
• Look at who the author is -- are they known to be an authority in the field? Do they have professional standing, qualifications and expertise? Being written by an established expert counts in the source's favour.
• Look at the publisher. University presses, (most) government agencies, established highbrow news organisations and so on are generally considered trustworthy; predatory journals, tabloids and gossip magazines generally aren't.
• Are there any obvious conflicts of interest? Is the author closely linked to the subject at hand, or is it published by an organisation with a clear agenda? Does the tone of the piece suggest a political or ideological alignment? Biased sources aren't automatically disqualified, but need to be handled with care.

You can also check the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, look at their list of much-discussed sources, and raise a query there if you're not sure about a particular source. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

FAC image review request

Hello, UC. Belated congratulations on becoming an administrator!

I have taken Sounder commuter rail back to FAC and would like to know if you are able to conduct another image review similar to the one at the first FAC. There has not been significant changes to the images since the first nomination and would just like to make sure that you are able to claim this one for review if you choose to do so. SounderBruce 00:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi SounderBruce -- thank you! I've done a very brief review on the FAC page. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! SounderBruce 09:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from Judgement fyah (01:01, 12 August 2025)

Hi I made a mistake and thought I was editing a new page but ended up rewriting on someone else page and I think I had got a citation is it anyway this can be removed from my page or on the contributions status page I been trying to delete it --Judgement fyah (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

FFD request

Thank you for closing the FFD of File:Jessie (Toy Story).png on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 July 17. If you have time, would you please consider closing the related/similar FFDs immediately above and below it? Stifle (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I've closed the Buzz Lightyear one -- at the moment I don't see consensus in the Sheriff Woody discussion. I appreciate this is frustrating and somewhat illogical, as clearly they're three versions of the same argument! It could probably be closed as no consensus, but as the last comment was three days ago, it might be more appropriate to see if discussion continues and can come to some kind of conclusion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

CFD re A-Bomb crews

Greetings, UndercoverClassicist. In light of your facility with the intricacies of grammar, etc. - which I discerned in your remarks about Cathode ray tubes - it occurred to me that you might like to join the discussion which is endeavoring to rename Category:Crew dropping the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think you might find it pleasantly challenging, and perhaps slightly amusing as well. :) Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Highlighting links

Hi, further to the recent conversation about DYK Queue 4, have you considered installing something like User:Anomie/linkclassifier? It makes your Wikipedia skin display redirects as green, disambiguation pages with yellow background (etc.), which is useful for spotting errors, in DYK hooks or elsewhere.

By the way, congratulations on your recent admin election. TSventon (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you -- and no, I hadn't seen that! I've just installed it and suspect it will come in handy. Thanks for the heads up! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from Internet korisnik (17:21, 18 August 2025)

Dear, I’m making an article (an autobiography) and it was flagged for not having in-line citations, due to it being of a living person. Any advice? Best --Internet korisnik (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Biographies of living people are held to fairly high standards of verifiability -- it's important that we only write what we can substantiate when it is about a person who can be affected by it. I would suggest finding some reliable sources and adding them into the article -- you can find an explanation of how to do this here. Reliable sources tend to be things like academic books, respectable newspapers, reputable websites (e.g. government organisations, the BBC, or the Associated Press) and so on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from Jaaamaa (07:45, 22 August 2025)

I did one publication but it is removed after few days --Jaaamaa (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello -- welcome to Wikipedia!

It's quite normal for edits to be reverted -- different people will have different ideas about what's best for the article, and decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus. Sometimes there are policies and guidelines which help to clarify the consensus around points that come up a lot, such as the Manual of Style for grammar, punctuation and so on.

• With this edit, you translated the English term into Somali -- this probably wasn't considered the best use of the first sentence. On the English Wikipedia, we tend to translate the names of places, countries etc in brackets (not in bold), but wouldn't generally translate a straightforward phrase like "Somali scholars", "German cuisine", or so on.
• With this edit, you added a figure to a list who doesn't have a standalone Wikipedia article. Wikipedia lists aren't usually meant to be exhaustive, particularly for a topic like Somalists where the list could potentially be extremely long. You could try opening a discussion on the Talk page and explain why you think this person is notable enough to be included -- this would usually be determined by whether there are good, independent sources discussing them or their work.

I hope this helps -- happy editing! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Good Article Gazette, Issue 2

Issue 2, 22 August 2025

Ongoing discussions

• Subject sweep?
• False titles

News

• No news for today!

Current statistics

• Number of GAs: 42,352 (+48)
• Number of nominations: 812 (–2)
• GAs for reassessment: 61 (–28)

• Review an article!
• Participate in review circles
• Acquire a mentor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Georg Karo scheduled for TFA

I know this is still at FAC, but... This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 October 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 11, 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by those who assist the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Now moved to 11 Oct. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Ring of Nestor

Actually enjoyed reading through this one. Feels like I’m drifting more into archaeology these days. It’s my first time coming across the subject. I aspire to work in tech when I’m older and have an interest in the British royals, as my work here probably suggests — but I’m curious: how do you usually find such subjects to work on? No rush. You can reply whenever suits you. Keep contributing as you do. MSincccc (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it's always good to write about things you're interested in, and ideally things you know something about. It's also the case that one project often leads onto another -- working on Panagiotis Kavvadias leads you to his eventual inheritor, Spyridon Marinatos; Marinatos was often in contact with Alan Wace, so he comes up there; Georg Karo taught Marinatos and knew Wace well, so he comes up with both of them; Karo plays an important bit part in the early history of the Ring of Nestor... it's one of the reasons I think WP:REDYES is very wisely conceived.

I forgot to mention -- something that gave me a lot of impetus a little while ago was the European Destubathon competition -- just finding a stub article in the right topic area and getting it to Start class was a good way to come across new topics and a nice change of pace from polishing things up to GA/FA standard. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:08, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m curious to know what your next major article will be. I’d be happy to assist, though I will be busy with exams during the first half of next month. No rush. Please let me know when it is convenient for you.

Regards, MSincccc (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of Georg Karo

Congratulations, UndercoverClassicist! The article you nominated, Georg Karo, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Kavvadias, Wace, Frantz, Marinatos, and Karo—the list goes on. Congratulations on your latest accomplishment. To be honest, it’s people like you who make FAC look like a cakewalk, while I continue to wait for my first one. I wonder which your next FA will be. MSincccc (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

General opinion

I know royals aren’t really your area, but I’d value a generalist opinion on Catherine, Princess of Wales. I’ve worked (though not completely) on earlier suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Catherine, Princess of Wales/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Catherine, Princess of Wales/archive1, and plan to relist it at PR, so any thoughts would be much appreciated. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

As you say, not really my area. I think the comments at the last peer review are, broadly, on the money -- getting an article to FA status is hard, and this is a particularly tricky one in lots of ways. I would look particularly at WP:PROSELINE, and the comments made (in various forms) that narrating an endless series of routine-ish events is likely to fall into excessive detail. In general, for busy accounts like this, it's best to take an analytical and thematic approach rather than laying everything out chronologically -- try to pick out key threads and key events, lead the reader through the important lines of the story, and let the minor stuff drop out. A Wikipedia article isn't supposed to replace a book-length biography: readers who want all the details can always go to the sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

TFA in August

story · music · places

Thank you today for Eritha, introduced: "This article was an interesting and tricky one to put together. There are probably two real-life figures from the Aegean Bronze Age (with apologies to Agamemnon) that we can really write about as rounded human beings, and Eritha is one of them. She was a priestess, probably of the goddess Potnia, who worked near the Mycenaean citadel of Pylos in the last year before that palace was destroyed by fire. Quite by chance, the blaze preserved records of her name in the palatial administration's accounts, which also give us the oldest known testimony of a legal dispute on the European continent. The direct evidence base for Eritha and her life is minuscule: this article therefore has to do a lot more "building up" than would normally be necessary in a biography, particularly around apparently simple questions like "when did she live?" and "what was her job?" I have tried to strike a balance here, aiming to avoid digressing while making sure that the essential context to understand what we do know about her life is given, following what the grown-up academics include when bringing her into their discussions. Similarly, I have tried to keep things comprehensible while not shying away from the arcane questions of philology that are unfortunately essential to any discussion of the dispute that brings her into the historical record."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Today's story - short version: ten years ago we had a DYK about a soprano who sang in concerts with me in the choir, - longer: I found today a youtube of an aria she sang with us then, recorded the same year, - if you still have time: our performances were the weekend before the Iraq war ultimatum, and we sang Dona nobis pacem (and the drummer drummed!) as if they could hear us in Washington. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Check out my talk for an Independence day, or: the pic of Oksana Lyniv was taken on 24 August. There's listening and reading in today's story, and I like both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

On top of my talk: birthday of a great violinist and Requiem for a great friend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Salvador Chuliá Hernández. If it is okay with you, I'm inviting you to propose hook suggestions at this nomination. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about how the nomination turned out. Given your input with the Julia Hagen nomination and how your suggestion rescued it, I was hoping for something similar to happen here. I agree that it would probably be for the best for an uninvolved editor to finish the review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Djenadi Hamidou la on American Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union (14:24, 2 September 2025)

مرحبا انا شاب جزائري اعمل ك شاف حلويات متمكن أبحث عن تطوير مهاراتي وتعلم أشياء جديدة في مجال الحلويات أبحث عن فرصة كي التحق بكم --Djenadi Hamidou la (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Rhyf (13:31, 6 September 2025)

Hello, how do i upload an image? Thanks. Update- i found out in the meantime, how to delete this? -Rhyf --Rhyf (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello -- glad you sorted it. In general, there's no need to delete old comments from a Talk page (a lot of people's pages, mine included, are set up to auto-archive old threads), but if you did want to do that, you can do so from the "Edit" button. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Ross

Er, did you mean to do that? As far as I know the article is still a FA. On the revert, regarding the lithographer, generally not for infoboxes - see the last section at WP:CAP. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

On hacking the top off -- no! Thanks for spotting; fixed.

I hadn't seen WP:CAP -- I do see An infobox image and, in the absence of an infobox, a photograph or other image in the article's lead section, serves to illustrate the topic of the article, as such, the caption should work singularly towards that purpose, but I don't see a categoric statement like "artists should not be credited" or similar. In my view, being painted/photographed/sculpted by a notable artist (easily defined as "one with a Wikipedia article") does serve to illustrate the significance of the article's subject -- per When the caption can convey the significance of the article by explaining the significance or context of the image, it should. WP:CAP gives Angelou recites her poem, 'On the Pulse of Morning', at President Bill Clinton's inauguration, January 1993 as an example of a good caption -- clearly, the fact that it was in January 1993 or at Clinton's inauguration does nothing to help us identify Angelou, but the fact that she was asked to recite there is significant.

I notice there's been a recent bonfire of artists in FA captions, and would suggest that this is backwards -- the MoS should follow practice, not dictate it (see WP:PAGS: Technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors.). If the MoS clearly doesn't follow widespread practice in our best articles, we should probably have a discussion on WT:FAC or WT:MOS and determine whether it should be practice or the MoS that changes. For now I've put the artist back in, but I'm happy to start or join that discussion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

If such a discussion is started, please ping me. I don't normally weigh in on WP policies, but the idea that the artist who created a portrait is irrelevant information, or that the inclusion of that information is somehow distracting to readers of an encyclopedia, is inexplicable to me. Choliamb (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 September 2025

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation loses a round in court
  UK Online Safety Act remains undefeated.

• In the media: Congress probes, mayor whitewashed, AI stinks
  Plus Wiki rules, Wiki Spin, and physicists get street cred!

• Disinformation report: A guide for Congress
  The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.

• Recent research: Minority-language Wikipedias, and Wikidata for botanists
  And other new research findings.

• Technology report: A new way to read Wikisource
  Tis true: there's magic in the web of it.

• Traffic report: Check out some new Weapons, weapon of choice
  With the usual mix of war, death, super heroes, a belt, and Wednesday.

• Essay: The one question
  It's an easy one.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

September 2025

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Jules Gilliéron. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Adrian.stewart.music (15:36, 8 September 2025)

Hello and thank you! I am new and created my first article. I'm not sure why, but Wikipedia shows me a notification I have been blocked from editing. I am not sure what went wrong there, but thank you for being a mentor! Best, Adrian --Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello -- I'm not sure what's happened here. As far as I can see, your block log is empty. I notice you posted the comments about a block to your Talk page from an IP -- I can't see that that IP is blocked either, but it's not impossible that it's in a range block because it's been used for vandalism in the past (common if it's a school or workplace), or it's a proxy server (the latter aren't generally allowed, as they facilitate people getting around enforcement measures). Are you still seeing that message? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I figured it out: my iCloud private relay feature needed to be toggled to off. Thank you. Now I don’t see the blocked message any longer.

I have created a bullet list of the things I am supposed to improve about my article. If you have time, do you think I’ve accurately captured the issues here in this check list? Thank you for your mentoring. I’ve not done this before. Also, I hope I can fix all of these. I believe at least some are straightforward. Thanks again for your time.

Checklist:

granular checklist with one bullet per problem from your draft:

• Infobox-style section is written as plain text instead of a proper infobox.
• “Born Dublin Ireland” missing commas/formatting.
• “Instrument(s): Voice, guitar” capitalization inconsistent with Wikipedia style.
• “Years active 1970–present” not formatted correctly.
• “Website” link should be placed in External links, not the infobox.
• “edit” appears in section headers (should be removed).
• “Gogan served as the lead vocalist, guitarist, and primary lyricist.[citation needed]” needs a citation.
• “Critics[which?] praised Gogan’s poetic lyrics…” needs specific attribution.
• “Sanctuary received critical acclaim…” is unsourced and flagged [citation needed].
• “Her solo works… demonstrate ongoing innovation…” flagged [original research?].
• “Gogan has toured… including Lene Lovich’s 2019 UK tour.[8][full citation needed]” needs a complete citation.
• “Barbara+Marco… Their music is described[by whom?] as a ‘sonic garden experience’…” needs attribution.
• “Performances have included… Day Moon Fest, Coru Aresti Festival.[9][failed verification]” needs verified sources.
• “Independent media[which?] have reviewed and featured Barbara+Marco…” needs sources.
• DVOX Magazine and Klubikon quotes look promotional and need proper attribution.
• “The Passions’ single… was inspired by Steve ‘Roadent’ Connelly…” needs stronger sourcing.
• “Sam Taylor-Johnson cover… Pitchfork [dead link]” must be updated or replaced with archive.
• “Discogs – Pet Shop Boys cover [better source needed][failed verification]” needs a stronger reference.
• “Gogan has composed for dance… resident composer for LAVA [citation needed]” requires a source.
• “She contributed live music for performances such as Intimacy Creates…” needs citation.
• Discography: “Wheels/Ruedas (early 2000s)” date unclear/unsourced.
• Discography: “Selected tracks: ‘Horizon’, ‘BusToMonticello’, ‘Spacey’ (2020s)” unsourced.
• Barbara+Marco albums listed as Bench and Eikasia (2025) are in the future — need verification.
• References 1, 2, 3 marked [full citation needed] must be completed.
• Reference 13 marked [better source needed][failed verification] must be replaced.
• Promotional phrasing throughout (“ongoing innovation,” “distinctive sonic style,” “immersive and evocative”) should be removed or replaced with sourced statements.
• AllMusic and Discogs links should be moved to External links if used as databases.
• External links section has duplicates with References (Bandcamp, Discogs).
• References formatting is inconsistent and needs standardization.

Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Ps I think I need a tiny bit of guidance on what counts as a verifying source of information about thing like tour participation, events, album releases (to show the album has already been released). Looking for articles or independent music criticism I feel more confident doing, but any advice you have would be appreciated. I can ask with my local librarian too. I am writing this article about someone who has not been self-promoting, but I’ll keep going. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, the biggest issues there will be citation -- consistent formatting, punctuation and so on are all "nice to haves" that don't play a role in deletion discussions. They'll become important if/when you want to improve the article further, or to put it up for something like a Good Article badge.

There are really two tiers of sources:

• The ideal is sources which are reliable, well-vetted, published and independent of the subject, with a reputation for expertise and reliability -- for instance, reviews, portraits or features in a major music magazine. These can be used to establish the notability of a topic (basically, the article shouldn't be deleted if its subject is discussed at length in lots of them), and for controversial facts, details about living people, matters of opinion, or other things where we need to be particularly careful.
• Sources which are generally likely to be reliable but have other weaknesses -- like being written by the subject themselves -- can sometimes be used for uncontroversial matters of fact, like the dates of a tour. However, they don't establish notability or that a particular fact is important enough to belong in the article, and should generally be used only if the information is both obviously important, can't be found elsewhere, and is fairly uncontroversially true. The classic use here is using someone's Twitter post as evidence for their birthday -- that's fine, but using it as evidence for their central place in the history of music probably isn't.

If you're not sure, try the reliable sources noticeboard. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This is super helpful. Thank you. I’ll see what I can find citations-wise. It’s a possible conundrum with someone like this topic when because of their era, even if very influential and notable in her field, wasn’t covered well-enough due to any number of variables, possibly even shyness or (speculative) a wish to avoid the pain of prior discrimination in the music industry. No idea, but I can imagine. Anyhow, it’s a pet project. I’ll see what I can do. Many thanks for your guidance here. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again, today I was able to locate and incorporate: an NPR review of her work; two scholarly publications situating her within feminist punk history; and one more independent and respected source in the Brooklyn Rail - a review of her current work. I'm thinking that this really puts the article on solid ground now as covering a notable person. I have defended the article as such in the deletion discussion area. Any further improvements I can make to formatting or other areas, I will continue to strive to make. Your guidance is welcome if you have time. Thank you! 2603:7000:9700:325:455D:1F9B:555F:1768 (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Gilliéron fils

I see that you're now following through on your promise to give him his own article. Would you like me to send you PDFs of the Mitsopoulou contributions to the Paris–Athènes and Olympisme volumes, which I collected while working on père? They're mostly focused on the father, but you may find them occasionally useful, since the two careers became so entangled during the last 25 years of his life, especially at Knossos. And your work on the son may lead you to other things in the father's article that you want to check or correct. Choliamb (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

That would be very kind — thank you. I've come across one or two things already, though it's not always straightforward to untangle which Gilliéron is being talked about — especially as not every author seems to be aware that there are two of them! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I've sent you an email with links to the files. Choliamb (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of replacing File:Gillieron pere family sketch.png with a higher-resolution version at File:Gilliéron père family sketch.jpg. The version from the PDF file I sent you was reduced in size and compressed in order to keep the file size reasonable; the version I have just uploaded comes from my original photo of that page -- not a great photo, to be sure, but nevertheless significantly larger and clearer. (I also cleaned up a few of the worst of the blotches and age spots.) I would have uploaded the larger version over your old one, but that wasn't possible, since yours is a PNG file and mine a JPG. We can keep both in the Commons if you like, or you can request speedy deletion of your version as a lower-resolution duplicate from the same source. (Good idea to upload that sketch, by the way. I should have thought of it myself, and made a better-quality scan with a scanner rather than my phone!) Choliamb (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Good swap, in my book -- I've CSD'd the PNG. Honestly, I don't know a whole lot about file formats, but JPG is probably better for this purpose anyway. I was quite excited when I first saw it (I quite like being able to add images which show something of the subject's personality or "hand"), but I'm not sure it's quite as useful as I'd hoped -- I couldn't find a good spot for it in père's article (it could conceivably replace the Delphi watercolour, but it's pretty straightforwardly a worse image), and neither Jean-Victor nor Alfred seem likely to have articles any time soon. However, I did find a home for it in Jules's article, and it's always in the Commons category for those who venture into those woods. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

On which -- scanning down, I see there's a reasonable portrait of the adult Jules in the same publication (p. 55). It's dated 1905 and seems likely to be unpublished before 2003 to me (it's cited only to an archive, so either we say that archiving it counts as publishing so it's PD-expired, or we say it doesn't, so it's PD-unpublished). Worth giving that the same treatment? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. For PD-US-unpublished I think we have to wait a few more months, because the 120-year clock doesn't start until the year after the year of creation, so right now according to the Hirtle chart anonymous unpublished works created before 1905 are PD, but those created in 1905 itself won't be PD until 2026. Unlike the sketch, which was certainly unpublished until the Olympisme catalogue, the photo of Jules looks like a professional work that I could imagine being published somewhere before, although it's impossible to tell. There's also the question of the 25-year publication right in France for previously unpublished materials, although unlike the photo of G. père and Josephine at the Gilliéron archive website, this doesn't have an explicit copyright notice attached (although it may still be implied by the copyright of the volume as a whole). Let me think on it.

If we're making wish lists, the one I really want is G. père on the donkey in the 1880s (p. 80 in the Olympisme catalogue)! It doesn't seem to be on the archive web site at collexpersée, but I pretty sure I've seen it somewhere else online with an EFA copyright notice attached to it. Again, there would be no question if it weren't for the 25-year right of reproduction granted for first publication of unpublished materials. Choliamb (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, I did some poking around online, and it appears we're home free with the portrait of Jules, because it is not anonymous: it was made by the firm of Étienne and Louis-Antonin Neurdein, who were active between the 1860s and the 1910s. French Wikipedia s.v. Neurdein gives the dates of their deaths as 1918 and 1914; other sources vary slightly (1913, 1915, after 1912, after 1915), but all in that decade, and in any case well over 70 years ago, which is all that matters. According to frwiki the firm merged with another company in 1922, and in 1970 their collection of hundreds of thousands of negatives and prints were acquired by the the Galerie Roger-Viollet in Paris, as described here. Confirmation that the portrait of Jules was one of them is here. Since the creator is known, the 120-year clock for anonymous works doesn't apply, and it's not eligible for the 25-year publication right, so it's PD in both the EU and the US. I'll dig up my original photo of that page of the catalogue and upload it to the Commons later today. ETA: done, see File:Jules Gilliéron (Neurdein, c. 1905).jpg. I've added it to the article. Choliamb (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you seen this page? It has a good photo of all of the children in the garden on Odos Skoufa, ca. 1895, and another of Émile fils as an adult in his studio, with an extravagant bow tie and dashing mustache. I suspect that some of these family photos may have been taken by E. père himself, and if we knew that they were, we'd be free to use them. But as long as they're anonymous, we're prevented by the 25-year publication right. Still, anything produced by E. père himself is PD, and the page also has a version of the family sketch that is better than my photograph, so I'm going upload it over my version. I'll also take his oil painting of the entrance to the Acropolis, although to be honest I don't think it's a particularly impressive painting. At the bottom of the page there's a watercolor by the son of a fresco at Knossos; since he died in 1939, that's fair game as well, if you want to upload it. (I won't; I don't like to dirty my hands with prehistoric stuff if I can help it.) Choliamb (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The watercolour's slightly dicey -- it was published by Evans in PM III (1930), as I remember, which would keep it in copyright in the US until next year. There's a bunch of other EGF works that fall into the same boat: I've got a mental reminder set for 2 January to come back and upload a full-res version of his Ring of Nestor watercolour, which we're currently using under an FUR and is (if you ask the right people) exculpatory evidence in his favour on that particular charge of forgery. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

QuestIon about sharing new references

I’ve been blocked from editing for a month it seems. I’m not entirely sure why, but I have found about 15-20 more solid references. My question is am I allowed to share them on my own talk page or somehow share them with editors? Or is that a violation of any rules? Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you're having the same sort of problem again -- your account is not blocked. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh Wow. Okay. I had had a message a day or so ago that a particular editor blocked me. But perhaps it has been reversed by another person? I am admittedly totally new to all of this. Thanks for your help! I really appreciate it! Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Your block log is blank, so your account has never been blocked. It sounds like you might be using a proxy, knowingly or not: even logged in accounts can't edit on those without special permissions. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Whew! Thank you! Maybe because i have reader view sometimes as default on my browsers. I'm turned of iCloud relay and turned off reader, so perhaps this can help. I'm not sure what else, but I'll keep troubleshooting. Thank you so much. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)