User talk:Acolex2

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Eudokia Makrembolitissa , may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion and think it make sense.thank you. Yswj700 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Acolex2 (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries, please

Please explain your contributions using a descriptive edit summary. Changing information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation may be confused with vandalism. Thank you. Eric ^talk 12:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! M.Bitton (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sancha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sancha of Castile. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Octavia never ascended the throne as empress; she only held power and influenced the appointment of emperors. There is no evidence or ruins. Sufficient evidence has been presented. History must be based on objective facts. In the utterly unreliable Historia Augusta, written in line with the Greek Thirty,No history book, relic, or relic has ever listed Octavia as an empress. History should be proved by objective facts, not hypotheses. Yswj700 (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talke at the page Talk:Victoria (Gallic Empire) Acolex2 (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Empress of Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jotei.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Eric ^talk 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tulun Beg Khanum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra IV

Please stop reverting my edits about Cleopatra IV. She was not Pharaoh. She might be deified, but being deified is not the same as being rulling queen. Livia in Rome was deified, but that does not make her empress regnant of Rome. Cleopatar IV was deified, as she was Royal daughter and wife of the King. But she never was included in dating protocols, nor she is known to have female Horus name. Cleopatra VII was dating her reign according regnal years and she also had female Horus names. Nothing like that was with Cleopatra IV. Some ptolemaic queens were not included in dating protocols, but had Egyptian Royal titles like female Horus names, throne name or Hk3.t (Ruler) - Berenike II, Arsinoe II and III, hence some researchers do regard them as nominal Pharaohs. But Cleopatra IV had neither those thing.

This is from academic work by Tara Sewell Lasater: Because Kleopatra III held on to power so actively, it does seem she restricted her daughters, Kleopatra IV and Kleopatra Selene I, somewhat. Her daughters were married to both their brothers, Ptolemy IX and Ptolemy X (see Appendix B), but, because their mother was the dominant ruling power in the family, both Kleopatra IV and Kleopatra Selene were restricted to the position of basilissai-consorts. For example, in temple reliefs, where the basilissa was usually shown alongside her husband and consort, Kleopatra IV and Kleopatra Selene were left out, since the position of actively ruling queen was held by their mother. Instead, their husbands, Kleopatra III’s sons, were depicted as her co-rulers, in the subordinate position that was usually reserved for the wives of the pharaoh. (BECOMING KLEOPATRA: PTOLEMAIC ROYAL MARRIAGE, INCEST, AND THE PATH TO FEMALE RULE, University of Houston May, 2020, p. 416)

No mention of Ptolemy IX's wife or Cleopatra IV (or Cleopatra Selene). Cleopatra II and III was only female co-rulers during Ptolemy IX's reign. If Cleopatra IV was co-ruler, she would be mentioned, like her mother and grandmother, and - like in future - Cleopatra VII. I could accept situation like with Berenike II, that she is not included but she has female Horus name - but Cleopatra IV is not known to have Horus name either. So she was not Pharaoh - or at least no evidence was found to attest this. 83.29.13.243 (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this and tell me what you think. ->

( [[1]] , p. 262 )

however, endogamy attained such a symbolic significance that queens received honorific titles such as “sister and wife” irrespective of their blood relation to the king. Such an ostensible casignesia occurred already for Berenice II, Ptolemy III’s maternal cousin, and subsequently for Cleopatra I, Ptolemy V’s cousin three-times removed. From the time of Cleopatra IV, the epithet Philadelphus became common. An important implication of royal incest is that it elevated the Queen’s status to equal that of the King. For by sharing his ancestry, she came to share in regal as well as sacral authority. Such consanguineous equivalence, in my opinion, represents a marked position of power and personal prestige of Ptolemaic queens at the Lagid court. Finally, religious symbolism intimated that, like the Great Goddesses with whom Ptolemaic queens were identified, the Queen’s love and devotion, her philadelphia, was conceived of as benevolence toward her royal parhedros. In addition to the romanticized ideal of gracious affection and virtuous loveliness, this benevolence involved advancing the status of her husband’s heir and successor, effectuating their divinization, and bestowing benefactions upon the temples and the population. As the “sister and wife” of the King, the Ptolemaic Queen thus obtained apotheotic parity. Acolex2 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not question Ptolemaic queens held incredibly high position. However, this conversation was about Cleopatra IV. Look at the Lagid genealogy in the work you had quoted (page 528) - it does not list Cleopatra IV as ruler. She was only queen consort. Your own source agrees with me. Being deified to 'equal position' is not the same as being formal co-ruler. In Christian Europe wives of kings were crowned, but that didn't make them queens rulling in their own right. Queens of Ptolemaic dynasty who were listed in Royal protocols as and dated their reign are: Cleopatra II, III, V and VII, Berenike III and Berenike IV. Those women were queens regnant and undisputed female Pharaohs.

Cleopatra I Syra is listed in protocols but many researchers treat her only as 'regent'; nevertless she had title of female Horus as well as title of hk3.t.

If we gonna assume that female Horus, throne or title hk3.t name makes person a Pharaoh then - besides women I already mentioned - we can add to this list Arsinoe II, Berenike II and Arsinoe III, though they did not date their reign in protocols, hence their Pharaoh's reign was ceremonial and Tara Sewell Lasater does not consider them queen regnants - and neither your source, hence they should be rather be classified as queen consorts. However some egyptologists - like Sally Ann Ashton, does view them as such (book: Last Queens of Egypt), so I can get behind idea they can be viewed as nominal co-rulers. Egyptologist Joan Fletcher also calls Arsinoe II a 'female Pharaoh' in her documentary movie. However, unlike those women, Cleopatra IV did not have any surviving Egyptian Royal titulary. I do not get why Wikipedia classified Cleopatra Selene as queens consort, but Cleopatra IV as Pharaoh, when there is no difference between them - neither of them had any Egyptian titulary, nor were mentioned in protocols. Work you linked does not include Cleopatra IV as queen in her own right. The only place I ever saw Cleopatra IV is viewed as queen regnant has been wikipedia. If you want prove your point, then please find my one work that names Cleopatra IV as co-Pharaoh/lists her in list of Ptolemaic Pharaohs. For now all books and works I read - icluding the one you had linked - classified her as queen consort. 83.29.13.243 (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra IV was included in the Dynastic Cult Lists, representing the rulers.

( read this -> https://www.oocities.org/christopherjbennett/ptolemies/background/sequence.htm ) Acolex2 (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you multiple times that being deified is not the same as being rulling queen in her own right. There was cult about Imhotep too - yet he is not viewed as Pharaoh. Sobek2000 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please come to Talk:List of pharaohs and discuss with me Acolex2 (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]