Talk:Cleopatra Selene of Syria

message: He was the Son of Cleopatra IV
:I see you are rewriting other articles to reflect your beliefs. I'm not clear why you seem to be so certain about relationships where scholars are uncertain. In this case see Ptolemy XII Auletes and sources such as  --Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it shouldn't be stated for certain either way then.  http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/ptolemy_xii.htm#Auletes.05  I think Cleopatra III's forcing Ptolemy XI him to divorce Cleopatra IV is the origin of the false belief that Auletes was illegitimate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.229.89 (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IV is 4 right. I suck t roman numerals sorry MAO6104 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Auletes was not Illegitimate 

message: Images in Wiki articles are supposed to enhance the reading and help the article visually. An image too big to fit in its own section does not fulfill his duty, as in the case of Cleopatra III's image See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images. However, I found a photo that depict the full scene from Kom Ombo. Now, this photo can fit the section of family, and depicts both prents (and the grandmother Cleopatra II). A source for this photo can be found: Martina Minas-Nerpel: Offering the ij.t-Knife to Haroeris in the Temple of Isis at Shanhūr. In the book: Illuminating Osiris: Egyptological Studies in Honor of Mark Smith, edited by Richard Jasnow, Ghislaine Widmer. Page 269
A bust of dark basal was ascribed to Ptolemy X by Helmut Kyrieleis, with circumstantial arguments as the bust itself does not have an inscription and we have no idea what Ptolemy X looked like since the Ptolemaic kings after Ptolemy VIII and before Ptolemy XII did not have their images portrayed on their coins. The figure appearing on the coins of Ptolemy IX and Ptolemy X is Ptolemy I. For more info, see: A Royal Ptolemaic Bust in Alexandria. By Paul Edmund Stanwick. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Vol. 29 (1992). Page 135, Portraits of the Ptolemies: Greek Kings as Egyptian Pharaohs by Paul Edmund Stanwick. page 58, and R.R.R. Smith: Three Hellenistic Rulers at the Getty. in The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal: Volume 14, 1986 page 70.
Yes, the article does not have much photos, but we should not add photos for the sake of them. They should stick to accuracy and manual of style guidelines. If a photo of Cleopatra III is to be added, then it should at least stay within its section without scaling it down in a way that goes against the general images size of the article. Uniformity of style should be taken into account in a featured article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware that those coins depicted Ptolemy I. Thanks for telling me. Векочел (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Hello User:Векочел. Can we please dicuss the photos you insert to the article first? I have tried to explain that according to the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images, a photo must fit within a section that have ==title== as a heading. The Historical background, family and name section can simply fit no photo. The infobox is too big and it will push any photo beyond the section if it was put on the right. Putting a photo to the left will sandwich the text, again, against the Manual of Style instructions.
Second, the photos you named Ptolemy VIII and Ptolemy IX do not depict those kings. Yes Ptolemy VIII issued the coin, but it depict his ancestor Ptolemy I, and the source for the image make that clear. See here
As for the coin of Ptolemy IX, I have explained above, with reliable sources, that we have no coin depicting the king. He had the portrait of Ptolemy I on all his coins, and no bust of his have a name inscribed, hence, we have no secure portraits of him at all and thats why he cant appear in this article which is featured and must adhere to strict accuracy. The only secure depictions of Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra III are ancient Egyptian reliefs where the monarchs are shown with their names.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware that those coins depicted Ptolemy I. Thanks for telling me. Векочел (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Second attempt

message: Attar-Aram syria, my first comment is we dont need to mention that Damascus is a capital after mentioning that it is where Antiochus XII ruled from. Isn't the definition of capital the place from which the government governs? Secondly the use of a word such as 'then' or 'afterwards' will clarify that Cleopatra Selene went into hiding after her husband Antiochus X's death. Векочел (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Векочел. I notice that you have no interest in low quality article. Antiochus VIII, or IX, for example. It seems that you like to edit only the featured article. By now, after you nominated some articles yourself, you must know that they are the result of a review process and a consensus; the latter is also applicable to the text. Yet, the lede as it existed after the FA process of this article was completely changed by you for no apparent reason aside from maybe that you didnt like the text and wanted to replace it with your own words!!!!! I rarely edit those articles unless I have new information from a reliable academic source, or to correct sentences that changed its meaning as a result of the Guild's copy edits. Featured articles need stability, and the text is not to be edited every now and then just for the sake of it. I will keep the version you last edited, but I really hope that you will refrain from this editing behaviour. If you have a passion for great articles, then you have all the tools to create them yourself, and not take over someone else's work. You asked me for sources about the Late Seleucid Period, and if you decided to to follow the steps of editors who create good content, then start with this: A Revised Chronology for the Late Seleucids at Antioch (121/0-64 BC). Read it well. Understand it because it is complicated and I had to read it three times before I managed to understand all the arguments. This paper I gave you will help you start if you decided to actually write about LSP monarchs whose articles have not already been brought to FA by me, like Antiochus VIII for example (do note that the article of Hoover is filled with sources that are relevant for anything you want to do a research on. Its like a tree, each branch leads to another)--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to the lede