User talk:Cerme

Hello! I've enjoyed your contributions, especially in the Paulo Francis article. Congratulations.

But I'm writing here to ask for some help. I'm having some trouble in the White Brazilian article, where a guy called Opinoso seems to behave to be the owner of the place. Would it be too much abuse to ask you to have a look there and make some comments?]

Thank you! Ninguém (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to your question on my talk here. • Rabo³ • 14:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've edited the entry accordinglyCerme (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for translating Veyne's original text. It does seem that Veyne strongly implied the connection, though (and perhaps this is something missing in translation) he seems not so incautious as to outright say it. I therefore believe that the sentence you added is legitimate. However: I think the original discussion of the events went on much too long, so your sentence might need to stay out anyways. As I recall (I haven't read the articles on this issue for about two years), Veyne's rationale of dynastic intrigue was developed more fully in standalone articles. They emphasized the intrigues of the female dynasts: Wishing to promote their own line, they made sure that the bastard-son wouldn't get anywhere near the throne. Unfortunately, Veyne doesn't seem (on the paragraphs you've quoted) to want to guess at the motives and mechanisms in detail ("these murders, whose reason we ignore").

Some months ago, another user added a prolonged narrative of the events, based entirely on Odahl's book. I didn't want to remove it—it provided an explanation, a sympathetic one perhaps, but one I hadn't had in my original passage—but I wanted to caution against accepting it. So I added some hostile reviews of Odahl to a footnote. Probably not the best thing to do. If we were going to add another paragraph, or cut some of the source criticism instead (I love that part, though! Don't destroy that part!), I would like to get a full overview of the competing psychological guesses in the scholarly literature. I feel that if we kept your sentence, we might downplay the most popular explanation on the market—that honest, doughty Constantine was outmanouevered by his wife and his mother, and convinced to murder his bastard son. Hmm.

There's some need for extended discussion of this material, but "Constantine I" is probably not roomy enough to hold it all. I've been wondering to myself how I'm going to break the full biography into more source-focused and detailed subarticles, but haven't been able to think of a good solution. Executions of Crispus and Fausta might be a good idea for a start, though.

Uh, anyways: CONCLUSIONS. You have convinced me. You should re-add that sentence, cited to both passages, although you might want to add a cite to a paper that discusses that theory in more detail.

P.S.: What is the French word you're translating as "bigwig"? You did that at Diocletian, too. You might want to find another word for that; "bigwig" is informal and uncommon in modern English.

P.P.S.: Cerme, I love your content additions (Maybe you look up the "important" French books on these subjects, so that you can add something completely new: G. Dagron's Naissance d'une capitale and Constantinople imaginaire, C. Mango's Le développement urbain de Constantinople (IVe–VIIe siècles), E. Patlagean's Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance (4e–7e siècles). Might be too late and too "socioeconomic" for your interests, though.), but you consistently make a small number of formatting mistakes. First: Sometimes you ignore the periods at the end of sentences that aren't yours. You should remove the period if you're going to extend the sentence, replacing it with a comma/colon/semicolon as the case requires. Second: You put the footnotes before punctuation, but Wikipedia's Manual of Style asks that they be placed after. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Cerme! If you need any papers from gated online journals (via JSTOR, Oxford, Chicago, Wiley, etc.), feel free to petition me. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The recent reply by Drmies has spurred me to check the literature again. The hypothesis that Crispus was executed to prevent an illegitimate son from contesting the dynastic succession was elaborated by Patrick Guthrie in his article "The Execution of Crispus", in Phoenix 20:4 (1966), 325–31. The other article I consulted is David Woods' "On the Death of the Empress Fausta", in Greece & Rome 45:1 (1998), 70–86, which mentions that Guthrie's thesis was "ably refuted" by H.A. Pohlsander's "Crispus: Brilliant Career and Tragic End", in Historia 33:1 (1984), 79–106. I have access to all three articles, and can e-mail them to you if you want. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've deprodded it, because of the following sources: , [ttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0atC9nVjn5YC&pg=PA275&dq=%22Olavo+de+Carvalho%22&hl=en&ei=hW4iTI3wPJCVOISvha4F&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22Olavo%20de%20Carvalho%22&f=false] and . I have only a very basic grasp of Portuguese, and I think the coverage is borderline, so please take this to WP:AFD if you wish. Thanks. Claritas § 20:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cerme,

I've reversed your latest edit. I think you have a perfectly fair point about qualifying and disclosing potential bias on Veja's part. However, this is not a self-admitted bias (IE: They don't claim to hold that point of view) so without reliable sources ascribing that point of view, this very much runs afoul of NPOV. If you can provide a neutral source describing Veja in that manner, I see no problem with your edit.--Dali-Llama (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dilillama: A quick search on Google Scholar offered a paper presented, in English, by a Brazilian scholar at the 2010 LASA Congress. I shall work further on thisCerme (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cerme. I read over your source. I really wish you could find a more direct quote ascribing this bias. Again, I'm not disputing your point but you're making a very strong assertion of bias about a major publication. And to be fair, you're "linking the dots"--no RS has said that the school issue is a clear example of bias. Let me know as soon as you have another source.--Dali-Llama (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dilillama: A direct reference was found in an University of Oxford paper that even refers to the " MST madrassas" storyCerme (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paulo Francis. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RafaAzevedo ^msg 12:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Paula_Francis.2C_Olavo_de_Carvalho, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This is in response to a WP:WQA discussion about you. Those comments are absolutely unacceptable, and you will be blocked if you continue. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No I'm sorry the reason that page doesn't make sense is because the English is appalling and unintelligible. Maybe staging wasn't the right correction but I only did that one because I can't make any sense of the rest of it whatsoever. Reichsfürst (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cerme, Using images from commons is actually quite easy, and addictive once you get used to it. First, let's talk about Commons. In a separate window, open up commons here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page You can use the search bar in the upper right to find relevant images, which might take some creativity since they are often poorly tagged and labelled. You might need to look for something really broad, like a country name, and then search through five hundred images before you find something relevant, but that's a worst case scenario. If you find images that are copyright-free (typically due to age - the creator having died more than 70 years ago), you can load them onto commons and legitimately use them from there, if you follow the proper procedures. If you have any images like that, let me know and I can walk you through the process. So let's say you find an image you like. When you click on the thumbnail of it in the search results, it opens up a page just for that image. It shows the image name across the top and has various copyright information beneath it, sometimes with a description. NOTE: For this next part to make any sense, you need to be able to see the coding by reading this at the "edit" version of this page. Okay, so now you need to copy the name of the file in its entirety. For example: "File:Rio de Janeiro from Corcovado mountain.jpg" To insert the image into your article, you want to paste that filename at the part of the text where you want the image to appear. If you just put square brackets around it (i.e. ), as you see, the image will show up full-size, which will usually look bad since most of these image file sizes are huge. So you need to add some coding to the photo. Here's an example of a fairly complete string of coding for that image:

[[File:Rio de Janeiro from Corcovado mountain.jpg|thumb|250px|alt = Mountains and harbor border the heavily populated city of Rio de Janeiro|left|Paulo Francis was born in the Brazilian capital of Rio de Janeiro.]]

will show up as

There are several parts to this coding, separated by the upright bar | . The first is always the filename of the image. Next you want to indicate the image is a thumbnail ("thumb"), because otherwise a caption won't appear underneath the image. Then you can put the desired file size, just the numbers immediately followed by px. Next, include alt = followed by a description of what you're seeing in the image, because this part is provided for read-aloud software to read to blind computer users to know what kind of illustrations you're including in the piece. Finally, write out a caption to be included beneath the photo. That's all there is to it. It's really easy once you try it. Good luck and let me know if I can help you with anything else! Lemurbaby (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I can take a look at it, but am very busy right now (sorry it has taken so long to get back to you). It will be several days or even a week before I can review it. I will make a brief comment on the fair use image on the PR next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cerme, I've started reviewing your WP:GAN nomination, Landless Workers' Movement. My comments can be found at Talk:Landless Workers' Movement/GA1. I've no idea whether this nomination will pass or not, and that is quite unusual. Work will be needed to bring it up to standard and I've not sure whether that is going to be achievable during this review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cerme, I read your comments at the end of /GA1. Just to clarify: the lead in this case is the first two paragraphs before the Contents box. If you are intending to do any more work on the article. I would suggest that the grammar is sorted out in the Earlier history of the land question in Brazil until the 1988 Constitution section first: some of the sentences are too long (this title is too long anyway). Secondly, decide what material needs to go in this section and what needs to go in the History section. Lastly, work on the Lead. The lead should introduce the topic of the article and summarise everything in the article (see WP:Lead). The lead needs the most work, but I think it is easier to write it after most of the article has been written - it is a summary after all. The article has good references, so that does not need much, if any, work. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leonel Brizola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Schlesinger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cerme, I've gone ahead and reviewed the article you nominated at WP:GAN, you can find my comments at Talk:Landless Workers' Movement/GA2. I hope you find them helpful. Let me know if I can be of any help as you continue to improve the article. Thanks! Peace, delldot ∇. 17:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Leonel Brizola you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks!Cerme (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The article Leonel Brizola you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Leonel Brizola for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landless Workers' Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Burke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trajan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charax (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Landless Workers' Movement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The article Landless Workers' Movement you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Landless Workers' Movement for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi: I saw your message at User talk:ClueBot Commons. I don't know enough about the topic to judge the validity of the sources, but the editor who was blanking your expansion has been blocked. I suggest that if something like this happens again, you post at WP:AIV (intervention against vandalism) if it is one editor, as seems to have been the case here, or at WP:RFPP if it's several (page protection indicated). However, first you should attempt to talk to the person: do not immediately call it vandalism, be more precise in your edit summaries (in this case blanking/unexplained reversal of referenced expansion), and here you will find escalating templates to put on their user talk page: admins are reluctant to block someone who has not received a full set of warnings, but very often they will also be vandalising/blanking/making POV edits on other pages, so if everybody who reverts them adds a warning, they have fair notice that more than one editor objects, and if they don't stop, there is a clear trail for the admin to see. These procedures will help you make your case; and also help get someone to stop if they are simply confused or joking around. Hope this is helpful. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paulo Francis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much!Cerme (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The article Paulo Francis you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Paulo Francis for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Paulo Francis

added a link pointing to Usual suspects

Trajan

added a link pointing to Enlightenment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warhawk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cerme, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Olavo de Carvalho, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trajan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The article Trajan you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Trajan for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your use of citations. WCCasey (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Cerme (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Cerme, I've been changing nbsp; to {{nbsp}} and nbsp;– to {{snds}} ("space, en-dash, space"), following Checkingfax's recommendations. I suppose I should also change – (simple unspaced en-dash) to one of these: {{ndash}}, {{nsndns}} ("no space, en-dash, no space"), or...forgot the third one..., but I thought I'd just concentrate on the first ones for now. But I wanted to ask you about something. In the references, I saw some "p." (for "page") and some "pp." (for "pages"), and I was adding the no-break space between those and the actual page number, then I started seeing the word written out: "page". I started changing them to "p." (or "pp." if it is plural), but then I thought before I change all of them I'd better ask you whether you prefer to see the word written out in full ("page") or if the abbreviations are all right. Corinne (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I just saw a red Cite error at Note 15. Corinne (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I think "page" is better. I wil see the ride Cite error presently. Cerme (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Corinne. I saw the error. Notes 14 & 15 refer to exactly the same reference. I believe this might be a case of a repeated reference, such as when two different pieces of information come from the same work and page, such as in an academic work would be dealt with by putting on the second following note: ibid., loc.cit - however, this is shunned by Wikipedia, and the definitive solution would be to reorganize references and footnotes according to the Harvard reference system, as I was explained lately by editor Zwerg Nase. Cerme (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Cerme, it doesn't matter to me which is used, the words "page" or "pages" written out in full or the abbreviations "p." or "pp.", but, to save the time and trouble later for re-doing them all, I thought I'd ask Checkingfax which is preferred in WP articles. See User talk:Checkingfax#Page or p.?. He kindly explained a lot, and I gather that in plain references, the abbreviations are preferred. If you have further questions, perhaps you could ask Checkingfax since he knows more than I do. Corinne (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There has been quite a bit of discussion there, but please see this final comment from Checkingfax: . It appears that there will be inconsistency if we use "page"/"pages" in regular refs since those refs made with the "cite book" template will show up as "p."/"pp.", so I recommend (for the sake of consistency) that we use "p."/"pp." in regular refs. Corinne (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digest. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aqueduct. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hadrian you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lower Pannonia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The article Hadrian you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hadrian for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You're doing great work at the Hadrian article, but sometimes your sentences can run on for quite a while. Take a look at my recent edits and you'll notice I removed one sentence of yours. I wasn't quite sure what message you were trying to get across. Can you re-add it as a standalone sentence?--Tataryn (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cerme -- I know you've been working hard to get Trajan into shape and address concerns I raised in my earlier comments. I've been watching your edits with interest. I feel a bit more work needs to be done, and I want to help you as much as I can.

1) Near the beginning of the section Trajan#The Correctores: Greek/Roman relations, you end a paragraph with this sentence:

• This had to do mostly with curbing overenthusiastic spending on public works as a means of channeling ancient rivalries between neighboring cities.

There are a few things wrong with this sentence:

(a) You have "had to do mostly" twice, both here and in the next sentence:

• Competition between Greek cities and their ruling oligarchies had to do mostly with marks of preeminence, specially for titles bestowed by the Roman emperor.

I'm not sure yet, but I think it works best with the first sentence, and something else could be used for the second sentence (I'm still thinking about it).

(b) It's not clear whether "as a means of channeling ancient rivalries between neighboring cities" is referring to the curbing of overenthusiastic spending or or the actual spending. It's not clear who was trying to channel ancient rivalries, and it's not entirely clear what "channeling" means here. I think I mentioned these same concerns before, and you tried to address them, but you haven't succeeded in clearing these things up yet. If you would answer the questions I've just raised here, I will help you express it clearly.

(c) In the second sentence I quoted above, you write "competition between Greek cities and their ruling oligarchies". Perhaps to someone who is familiar with Roman history, this is clear, but to an average reader, this is not clear. What kind of competition can there be between a [Greek] city and its "ruling oligarchy", unless that ruling oligarchy was Roman? If it was Roman, then (1) what kind of competition was this, and (2) why do you introduce a Greek-Roman competition immediately after a sentence that mentions "ancient rivalries between neighboring cities"? Weren't those Greek cities?

It's all a little too vague. Corinne (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay Corinne: the vagueness of both sentences is, to a certain measure, a consequence of their describing a very complicated historical situation. Let's say that the Romans were all too content with Greek grandees toying with city titles and (therefore) getting into a building frenzy; at the same time, thay wanted (badly) to have their taxes collected by the same Greek grandees and sent to Rome - the sooner the better. Therefore they did not want those "poor Greeks" to get into bankrupcy.

Intercity rivalry in the Greek East was mostly a competition betweeen the Greek oligarchies that ruled each city in behalf of Rome; at the same time, the common people also had a share in such rivalries (which envolved ruckus, brawls, hitting and killing between rival supporters at regional games, et coetera) and so one can say that it was not only rivalry between ruling cliques, but between entire cities as well.

That's what I meant to say in the two sentences. Naturally, I would be very pleased if you make both sentences easier for the general reader to understand. Thanks againCerme (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see. Well, you explained it here pretty well. I think you only need to mention the things that are pertinent to the new policy of correctores being appointed by Rome to audit the accounts of the Greek cities, and, briefly, the kind (or kinds) of competition between which groups/cities. I think it would be very interesting to list the various kinds of competition in that part of the world at that time, kind of the way you explained it to me. It would illustrate the complexity of Greek-Roman relations. Also, could you please explain (using different words), what you mean by "Greek grandees toying with city titles"? Usually, the verb to toy is used with a person: X toyed with him. To toy with someone means to play with him in a way that is teasing the person, or deliberately misleading him, for the amusement of the person who is doing the toying. I'm not sure that's what you meant. Do you mean that members of the Greek oligarchy were competing for prestige in the eyes of Rome, in order to gain favor with Rome and thus additional advantages and/or money for their city? Corinne (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Corinne: Wow! That's an enormous commission you are offering me. The French historian Paul Veyne has written an entire book on this subject (civic spending in the Roman Empire), "Le Pain et Le Cirque", and it covers 800 small print pages... Plus another article by him, on Roman/Greek relations, that takes a further 100 pages. And this only from a single historian. The subject was already a burning issue during Roman times, and Dio of Prusa and Plutarch wrote entire tracts on it. But I will take a time and try to think about how to tackle the subject in a short way. Thank you very much for your interest - as well as for your splendid edits!Cerme (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

First, you are welcome. Second, I don't think you have to write much more than you have already written. This section is about 3/4 to 4/5 of the way to being all right. You just have to use the right words (precise words) to say what you want to say, and organize the sentences well. Between what is already there (in this section) and what you wrote just above, you've kind of already said enough. I'm just trying to get you to clarify some words and phrases you've used. You did clarify some things, just above. Can you just respond to the other issues I raised? I will help you to put it into good sentences once I understand what was really going on. Corinne (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a note to tell you I left an additional comment at User talk:Corinne#Trajan again. I pinged you, but I just now remembered that perhaps the ping doesn't work with a red user name. Why don't you set up a user page so your user name will be blue? Corinne (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne and Cerme. Pings to registered users who do not have user pages will go through if the user name is used exactly as registered (with casing (including CamelCasing), punctuation, etc.). The exception being usernames that contain an equal sign. Those need special treatment to go through (if a ping template is used).

However, it is my opinion that users without blue user names may be missing some pings because it is difficult for red user names to be proofed when pinging. A blue user name in a message preview is one of my cues that the user name is live and I typed it in correctly (or better yet I copy/pasted it correctly).

Cerme: As an aside, I notice when you respond to Corinne that you do not ping her at all. Lacking a ping she will not necessarily notice your update unless she subscribes to changes by email, or keeps a close watch on her Watchlist. For me, I have turned off email notification because keeping my email inbox cleaned up became overwhelming and it was tedious to follow the links one by one. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Cerme, adding to this, I don't know your reasons for not having a user page, but Checkingfax has told me that it would be enough to add one image or even just one word to your user page, and save, and then your user name would be blue – and you would get pings from other editors. If you have thought about making a user page but just don't know how, you could look at Wikipedia:User page design center, and I would guess that Checkingfax would help you if you needed any kind of help. Corinne (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)