User contributions for PericlesofAthens
A user with 76,805 edits. Account created on 18 March 2007.
21 November 2024
- 19:4019:40, 21 November 2024 diff hist 0 m Late Bronze Age collapse →top: for that matter this can go beneath it.
- 19:3919:39, 21 November 2024 diff hist −7 m Late Bronze Age collapse →top: why? Just why? Why would you put a lead image in the center at the bottom beneath the text? What other article even does this? It's just not good aesthetics for starters, let alone unconventional.
28 October 2024
- 20:4720:47, 28 October 2024 diff hist +26 m Late Bronze Age collapse →top: unfortunately there isn't an article for Asia yet, but there is one for Europe
20 October 2024
- 16:4916:49, 20 October 2024 diff hist +850 Talk:Cleopatra →redundant formulation: Reply Tag: Reply
19 October 2024
- 13:5313:53, 19 October 2024 diff hist 0 m User:PericlesofAthens Having an editing certificate and a master's degree, I can't believe I missed this typo until now with the missing apostrophe. LOL. Nice work, brains! It's a good thing nobody actually pays attention to my user page, otherwise this would be embarrassing. Hah! current
17 October 2024
- 11:2311:23, 17 October 2024 diff hist +4 m Mosaics of Delos →Dating: someone must have amended this statement long after my successful FA candidacy, due to the obvious missing article word "the" here. I'll have to reread the article to check for vandalism, though this could just be a case of having an editor who does not speak English natively and being mistaken in how to structure a sentence with proper grammar and syntax. current
28 September 2024
- 10:5310:53, 28 September 2024 diff hist −40 Late Bronze Age collapse →top: tagging the entire article like this is rather hyperbolic, considering how it has 86 inline citations. It's not like it has a dearth of cited sources either. Some specific sections need a lot more work, yes, but to characterize the whole article in this way is ridiculous, in my view. How about tagging particular statements that don't have citations yet, instead of leading readers of the lead section to believe the rest of the article has little to no citations given?
13 September 2024
- 15:3715:37, 13 September 2024 diff hist −1 m Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom) →Requested move 9 September 2024: lining up the comment correctly
- 15:3615:36, 13 September 2024 diff hist 0 m Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom) →Requested move 9 September 2024: not sure why it put my signature on the line below my comment.
- 15:3515:35, 13 September 2024 diff hist +466 Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom) →Requested move 9 September 2024: Reply Tag: Reply
7 September 2024
- 19:2119:21, 7 September 2024 diff hist +114 m Cleopatra Undid revision 1244456855 by Melchior2006 (talk) the source cited here emphasizes female sexuality explicitly, and you created an incomplete statement here, ending the sentence with a quoted adjective instead of the adjective plus noun (i.e. just "Egyptian" instead of the "Egyptian" look). Tag: Undo
2 September 2024
- 00:5700:57, 2 September 2024 diff hist +52 m Historiography →Rome
- 00:3400:34, 2 September 2024 diff hist −54 Battle of Corinth (146 BC) →top: the person who tagged these statements clearly does not understand how Wikipedia works. These statements are cited heavily in the prose sections below. We do not need them to be cited in the lead section if they are covered elsewhere with proper sourcing. Ideally the lead section shouldn't contain any statements at all that don't provide a summary of what is found in the rest of the article.
9 August 2024
- 12:2112:21, 9 August 2024 diff hist +17 m Musée Rolin →Collection: link
6 August 2024
- 17:0217:02, 6 August 2024 diff hist +1,283 Talk:Roman Empire →BC to BCE
4 August 2024
- 14:3114:31, 4 August 2024 diff hist −7 m Talk:Cleopatra →Image description: grammar
- 14:2814:28, 4 August 2024 diff hist +1,154 Talk:Cleopatra →Image description: Reply Tag: Reply
25 July 2024
24 July 2024
- 21:3421:34, 24 July 2024 diff hist +76 m User:PericlesofAthens No edit summary
16 July 2024
- 22:2622:26, 16 July 2024 diff hist +36 m German spring offensive →top: link
11 July 2024
- 22:1622:16, 11 July 2024 diff hist −25 Ethnicity of Cleopatra restoring article after anonymous IP introduced grammatical mistakes in his/her edits. Tag: Manual revert
21 June 2024
- 14:5014:50, 21 June 2024 diff hist +770 Talk:Out-of-place artifact →Anomalous, out of place corrosion prevention technology associated with Chinese bronze: Reply Tag: Reply
18 June 2024
- 22:5122:51, 18 June 2024 diff hist −261 Roman Empire →top: You're citing the talk page discussion of another Wikipedia article? What? Meanwhile, this article does provide a citation for the empire reaching it's greatest extent under Trajan with Bennett (1997). The claim makes sense as well. Trajan invaded the Parthian Empire as far as the Persian Gulf where modern day Kuwait exists. There is no source in this article that refutes Bennett's claim.
11 June 2024
- 16:5016:50, 11 June 2024 diff hist −1 m Science in the ancient world →Medicine: this belongs here in the discussion about materials outside of the major canon of Chinese medicine.
31 May 2024
- 22:1622:16, 31 May 2024 diff hist +51 m Béziers →History: just for clarity
- 07:2707:27, 31 May 2024 diff hist +25 m Sino-Roman relations →top: his name is already linked in the lead section
- 07:2507:25, 31 May 2024 diff hist +25 m Sino-Roman relations →top: we should not repeat links in the lead section
11 May 2024
- 17:4017:40, 11 May 2024 diff hist +1,070 Talk:Cleopatra →Image description: Reply Tag: Reply
- 17:3117:31, 11 May 2024 diff hist +437 Talk:Cleopatra →This article is poorly written, and poorly researched
10 May 2024
- 18:2218:22, 10 May 2024 diff hist +48 m Science in the ancient world →China and East Asia: and why exactly was this removed? It is a useful infobox pertinent to this section. There's really no justification for its removal other than WP:I don't like it.
- 18:2118:21, 10 May 2024 diff hist −41 m Science in the ancient world →Inventions: The new organization into subsections is okay, though you removed a much needed citation for the last statement here, which should be restored. However, this is the most puzzling addition. Primary sources? What? Literally nothing here is a primary source. It is all secondary sources from the mid-20th century onward (i.e. Needham). Please familiarize yourself with the basic definition of a primary source before editing Wikipedia.
9 May 2024
- 00:0300:03, 9 May 2024 diff hist +29 m The Equalizer 3 →top: links are important. Not sure why these are excluded from the lead section, even if they appear once in the body of the article at random spots.
19 April 2024
- 19:5119:51, 19 April 2024 diff hist +19 m Elisabeth Kübler-Ross →Legacy and contributions: journal versus book title
- 19:5019:50, 19 April 2024 diff hist 0 m Elisabeth Kübler-Ross →Legacy and contributions: typo
- 19:4919:49, 19 April 2024 diff hist +139 m Elisabeth Kübler-Ross →Legacy and contributions: article name and author link
- 19:4619:46, 19 April 2024 diff hist −1 m Elisabeth Kübler-Ross →Legacy and contributions: literally in the title of the article, but it's producing a weird error in the citation
- 19:4619:46, 19 April 2024 diff hist +5 m Elisabeth Kübler-Ross →Legacy and contributions
- 19:4419:44, 19 April 2024 diff hist +4 m Elisabeth Kübler-Ross →Legacy and contributions: typio
- 19:4319:43, 19 April 2024 diff hist +28 m Elisabeth Kübler-Ross →Legacy and contributions: rewording just a bit for clarity
- 19:3119:31, 19 April 2024 diff hist +954 Elisabeth Kübler-Ross →Legacy and contributions: citing another article, this time about five stages, reorganizing subsection a bit, rewriting some parts a bit.
- 19:0019:00, 19 April 2024 diff hist −1 m Elisabeth Kübler-Ross →Legacy and contributions: punctuation unnecessary
- 18:5218:52, 19 April 2024 diff hist +34 m Elisabeth Kübler-Ross →Legacy and contributions: shame this doesn't have its own article, but this link covers it for now.
- 18:5118:51, 19 April 2024 diff hist +867 Elisabeth Kübler-Ross This whole article needs serious work, but in the meantime it simply needs better organization instead of this haphazard jumble of sections. Expanding contributions section to make it into a legacy section as well, which makes more sense and is in line with most biographies on Wikipedia.
15 April 2024
- 08:1508:15, 15 April 2024 diff hist −2 m Islamization of the Sudan region →top: it makes far more sense to use this link here instead
11 April 2024
- 00:3800:38, 11 April 2024 diff hist +770 User talk:NOVASYPHER →April 2024 current
- 00:3700:37, 11 April 2024 diff hist +30 m Ancient Greek art restoring article before vandalism Tag: Manual revert
10 April 2024
- 06:5106:51, 10 April 2024 diff hist +2,651 User talk:PericlesofAthens →New message to PericlesofAthens: Reply Tag: Reply
1 April 2024
- 22:1122:11, 1 April 2024 diff hist −481 Song dynasty Undid revision 1216771068 by JusticiarH (talk) Not disagreeable information, but you introduced an unnecessary sentence fragment and citation error in a clearly sloppy attempt to simply copy and paste an extract from another Wikipedia article word for word. Doing that verbatim is not allowed. This is also tangential in the lead section, belongs more to the main prose body where info can be more detailed. Tags: Undo Reverted
28 March 2024
- 22:1922:19, 28 March 2024 diff hist +8 m Sino-Roman relations →Envoy Gan Ying: on second though, a comma would suffice
- 22:1722:17, 28 March 2024 diff hist −11 m Sino-Roman relations Undid revision 1216061999 by 2A00:23C5:B395:C001:816:79DB:78B8:594C (talk) adding a space between the em dash and the next word does not improve things. Tag: Undo
