Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Petronius Maximus"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>JLJ001
m (+)
imported>JLJ001
(is fine)
Line 45: Line 45:
  
 
*Hi {{u|JLJ001}}. Apologies for the delay. I was on holiday and wanted to get back to my sources. But on reflection, having a debate on how thorough the sack was is bootless on a DYK nom. Your Alt 2 seems fine to me, probably better than my original. (Alt1 was mostly a joke and I agree that it is too self-referential.) [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 12:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 
*Hi {{u|JLJ001}}. Apologies for the delay. I was on holiday and wanted to get back to my sources. But on reflection, having a debate on how thorough the sack was is bootless on a DYK nom. Your Alt 2 seems fine to me, probably better than my original. (Alt1 was mostly a joke and I agree that it is too self-referential.) [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 12:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 
+
::It's really not a problem at all, I would definitely have approved this myself if it wasn't for the recommendation for new reviewers to get a second opinion. [[User:JLJ001|JLJ001]] ([[User talk:JLJ001|talk]]) 13:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 13:03, 29 May 2018

Petronius Maximus

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 09:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC).

  • This is not very accurate. the 455 sack of Rome was in no way through (city not burnt, citizens not murdered etc). Nor did the vandals wantonly destroy anything. What they did was deface the cultural content of Rome, hence why vandalism means defacement, rather than destruction. With that in mind I have drafted ALT2. JLJ001 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Lua error: expandTemplate: template "y" does not exist.

  • Hi Template:U. Apologies for the delay. I was on holiday and wanted to get back to my sources. But on reflection, having a debate on how thorough the sack was is bootless on a DYK nom. Your Alt 2 seems fine to me, probably better than my original. (Alt1 was mostly a joke and I agree that it is too self-referential.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It's really not a problem at all, I would definitely have approved this myself if it wasn't for the recommendation for new reviewers to get a second opinion. JLJ001 (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)