lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Rosenheimium

message: "Pons Aeni" usitatior videtur, et "Aeni fluminis" apud Tacitum reperitur. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:17, 13 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, sed Pons Aeni est Innsbrück... Fons mortuus hic datus dicebat "Bernhard ZÖPF, Über eine zweite römische Verbindungsstraße von Pons Oeni (Innbrücke bei Rosenheim, Pfunzen) nach Turum (Oetting), in: Oberbayerisches Archiv 31, 1871, S. 17-21" Lesgles (disputatio) 20:21, 13 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Bene repperisti. Citationem tuam in pagina ipsa inserui: OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:02, 13 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Thanks! But now that I'm read it, I'm wondering if it just refers to the bridge, and not the actual town. And what is Pfanzen? O magnum mysterium! Here's the actual pamphlet by Zöpf, if anyone wants to decipher it. He also mentions Turum as a name for Oetting (I think this is :de:Neuötting and :de:Altötting). Lesgles (disputatio) 21:52, 13 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::The bridge is a measurable distance southeast of the town, and the fact that "Innstrasse" leads to it from the centre of town suggests that the bridge has been at that site for a long time. Yes, we may well think that (without a good source) Rosenheim should not simply be equated with "Pons Oeni".

text: :::If I have interpreted it correctly, the Itinerarium Antonini lists this place, calling it "Pons Aeni", at reference Wess. 258,8. Whether a Roman site has been found anywhere near the bridge site, I have no idea! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:17, 14 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::That sounds right. I went ahead and moved to Rosenheimium, for which I found a source. If you'd like to add more about the bridge, please do! Lesgles (disputatio) 19:54, 15 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda
Disputatio:Paulopolitana

message: De nomine "Paulopolitana" (sive fortasse "Civitas Paulopolitana") vide hic in enumeratione civitatum australium Brasiliae. Urbs iam appellatur "Paulopolis". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:13, 14 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Cathariniana

message: De nomine "Cathariniana" (sive fortasse "Civitas Cathariniana") cf. enumerationem civitatum australium Brasiliae: " Civitates Paulopolitana, Paranensis, Cathariniana et Rivus Magnus Australis". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:15, 14 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Lingua Philippinica

message: Under "Vocabularium," it's minimally useful to give a seemingly random list of words. Perhaps at least distinguish the Austronesian ones (ama, ina, ako, mata, tainga, the numbers, etc.) from the others? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:49, 15 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Others like Spanish and Chinese? Seems like a good idea.--Jondel (disputatio) 15:00, 15 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocabularium
Disputatio:Sepulcrum Scipionum

message: Argumenta paginae huic coniunctae maxima ex parte e pagina "Grab der Scipionen" sitús de.wikipedia.org sumpta sunt, quae autem multo plura scitu digna praebet. Auctoribus illius paginae gratias ago.--Utilo (disputatio) 17:42, 15 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status paginae die 15.03.2015
Disputatio:Universitas Monasteriensis

message: Monsis ? Vide sigillum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:46, 19 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Primus non es, qui hanc quaestionem ponat! Vide "Universitas Monsis" apud google; deinde comparationem fac cum "Universitas Monasteriensis" et "Universitatis Monasteriensis". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 19 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine Universitatis Monasteriensis
Disputatio:Civinocurtis

message: I have found several medieval and neo Latin passages referring to a town called Civinocurtis. According to Etude sur l'étymologie de nombreuses localités situées principalement dans l'ancienne Picardie, p. v, this is the Latin name for Chevincourt. I have therefore changed the name on the Wiki page from Chevincourt to Civinocurtis. Eltheodigraeardgesece (disputatio) 04:44, 20 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Change
Disputatio:Sanctus Papulus

message: Graesse corroborat nomen "Sanctus Papulus" a Gallia Christiana iam extractum. Cur enim pagina ad "Fanum Sancti Papuli" mota est, nescio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 25 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cur mota?
Disputatio:Milleyum

message: De hoc communi fontem nominis "Mauriliaci" non iam habemus. Cf. "Mauriliacum" in , ubi de communi praefecturae Seine-et-Oise agitur -- vide Mauriliacum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:27, 5 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hic inveni "Milley, Milleyum", "rector de Milleyo" et "ecclesia de Milley". Milleyum fortasse est nomen aptissimum. Lesgles (disputatio) 05:07, 6 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :For google-copyright reasons that text isn't visible in Europe. But I believe you. Move the page, I would say. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:36, 6 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Oh no! And that would be silly, because it's a French book from 1903. How about these links?

text: ::* https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sMgvAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA491

text: ::* https://books.google.fr/books?id=sMgvAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA491

text: ::* http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5917m/f572.image.r=.langFR

text: ::Maybe using the Gallica site is better anyway. Lesgles (disputatio) 14:47, 6 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::No, the first two give me nothing. Google Books apply (it seems) a simple rule of thumb. If publication date is within 150 years of now (1865 or after), there might just possibly be some surviving copyright claim in Europe, so play safe and don't make it available in Europe. Agreed, using Gallica makes sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 6 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Good to know! Lesgles (disputatio) 17:49, 6 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mauriliacum
Disputatio:Index sociorum Regalis Societatis Londini

message: Sunt "socii" (Anglice "fellows") huius societatis, non "sodales"; e.g. Ioannes Aubrey in libro suo Brief Lives saepe post nomina hominum verba Latina "Regiae Societatis Socius" addit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:43, 5 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Iwateensis

message: The real name seems to be "Iwate". Why is the pagename "Ivatea" and the lemma "Niigata"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:47, 13 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just clicked on an index at the box at one of the prefectures to automatically create the page. I assumed somebody figured that out already. Please change  to what you think is correct.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:54, 13 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Don't ever assume that old lists on Vicipaedia have had their Latin names figured out already! It's up to the page creators (you and me) to get the names right, and if we can't find a source for a Latin name, it's safer to use the local name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:18, 13 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

text: I'll be correcting the Niigata lemma.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:56, 13 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

text: Done with Niigata.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:00, 13 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Great. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:18, 13 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
I assume this should be Iwate, will move this and make similar adjustment on connecting links and names in a few days.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:00, 13 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

text: I have now moved to "Iwateensis", having confirmed that Latin form via biological names. It was common in classical Latin to form names of political subdivisions out of geographical adjectives (e.g. Narbonensis, Tarraconensis), so that's what I'm beginning to do for modern countries where it seems suitable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 9 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Great work Andrew!--Jondel (disputatio) 20:17, 9 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Jondel! We often find ready-made Latin names for modern cities, but rarely for modern administrative divisions. In retrospect, it took me a long time, some very slow lateral thinking, to see this solution, but I think it should work well for several countries including Japan. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 10 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Disputatio:Akihitus

message: Indicem familiae removi quia omnia nomina in formam "Latinam" conversa erant. Id sine fontibus non facimus. Ergo oportet a principio rescribere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 16 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Familia" 

message: “AKIHITVM ET MICHIKAM” should be rewritten as “ACIFITVM ET MITICAM” from Latinization of Japanese, as for Philippus Franciscus Faxecura Rocuyemon. 170.64.214.179 04:53, 31 Martii 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late, because this is an official inscription. the emperor, on whose behalf this Latin spelling was approved, cannot now change his mind. However, the alternative spelling you propose could be added, at least in a footnote, if you can cite a reliable source for it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 31 Martii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ab Latinizatione
Disputatio:Rhegolithus

message: Hic neologismus, qui probabiliter non in aliis Latinis reperitur, si regulas Graecae translitterationis sequimur, "rhegolithus" (ut acrolithus, drosolithus, monolithus) vel "rhegolithos" (ut chrysolithos, hexecontalithos, tecolithos), reddendus est, nisi fallor. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:40, 22 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda?
Disputatio:Apollo

message: Quamquam Apollinis fortasse sit melius, L&S aiunt: "gen. APOLONES, Inscr. Orell. 1433, like salutes, v. salus; dat. APOLLONI, Corp. Inscr. III. 567, APOLENEI, ib. I. 167, APOLONE, Inscr. Ritschl, Epigr. Suppl. 3, p. 3; abl. APOLONE; the gen. Apollōnis etc., is often found in MSS., as in Cic. Tusc. 1, 47, 114, and even Apollŏnis is found in Plaut. Men. 5, 2, 119." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:12, 22 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte citas. Variatio apud scribas antiquos Vicipaedianosque recentiores e declensione Graeca oritur, ubi Apollo -onos habemus.

text: An quis disputat "Apollinis" formam Latinam classicam esse? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 22 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, I recently went on a Apollonis-fixing spree, perhaps too hastily. But the forms L&S give in parentheses are exceptions, and Apollinis is indeed rare in the best editions; e.g. PHI has 3 instances of "Apollonis" compared to 265 of "Apollinis". [Lesgles]
replies: text: ::I also change "Apollonis" when I see it. There is surely no reason for us to follow the 3 rather than the 265. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:24, 22 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetivus nominis Ἀπόλλων
Disputatio:Hydrophiidae

message: Legenti istum superlativum propriissimus mihi in mentem venit Antibarbarus der Lateinischen Sprache (conscriptum a J. Ph. Krebs, in duabus partibus. Francoforti 1843 ). Ibi reperio in primae partis paginis 23 s.: Sp<ätes> L<atein>, zum Theil barbarisch sind Gradformen wie [...] propriissimus, und was man sonst noch Wunderliches der Art [...] gebildet [...] und was durchaus keine Nachahmung verdient. Quibus si non assentimini, vocabulum a me sublatum reficiatis. --Bavarese (disputatio) 10:52, 23 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  de gradu superlativo ''propriissimus''
Disputatio:Dignum est

message: Haec pagina, nisi fallor, de verbis agit et non de re. Tales paginae Theodisce et Francogallice scriptae, huic annexae, sunt paginae discretivae. Haec pagina si discretivam esse vult, oportet textum Graecum in paginam substantivam removere; si substantivam esse vult, oportet ad minimum fontem citare. An recte distinxi? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:44, 26 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Error fuit fortasse in nexu intervicio. Iam repperi paginas substantivas de hac re, neque Francogallice neque Theodisce, sed Neograece et Anglice. Nexum et fortasse paginam mutabo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:06, 26 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discretiva?
Disputatio:Pisces (astrologia)

message: I can't write latin, sorry if this is preferred here.
Me and a friend of mine recently read this article. We have a doubt on its first sentence, thinking it may be wrong:
Wouldn't "Pisces est duodecimum signum zodiacum" be correctly written as "Pisces est duodecimum signum zodiaci" to indicate the genitive case¹ for the sign of pisces?
Maybe related: in Portuguese, my mother language, we would write that sentence with a genitive grammatical construction; latin is usually similar in this kind of idea.
---- Rapidim (disputatio) 12:46, 29 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
¹ http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genitive_case
² http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zodiacus#Latin
replies: text: You would be right if zodiacus were only a noun, but it can also be an adjective. As it is now, we could translate it as "Pisces is the twelfth zodiacal sign", with zodiacum being a neuter nominative to agree with signum. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:27, 29 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Really!? That's a surprise. I'm learning the basics of latin. Thank you for the clear and very valuable explanation.

text: :---- Rapidim (disputatio) 00:37, 30 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genitive case on first sentence?
Disputatio:Historiae adversum paganos (versio Anglosaxonica)

message: Apologies for writing in English. The map that appears in this article was previously used in the English article :en:Ohthere of Hålogaland, but now the English article is more fully developed than it was and uses the map shown here. This is because, as I believe, the older map is seriously in error. You may wish to review my comments on the Talk page for the older map here and consider using the map shown here instead. Thanks for reading. Nortonius (disputatio) 15:58, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for this suggestion. I'll edit as you recommend. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:42, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review the map
Disputatio:Abecedaria Georgiana

message: Usor:Helveticus montanus As I understand the current name means "Georgian alphabet", right? It should be "Georgian scripts" in plural form as there are 3 scripts and they are used for other languages as well not just for Georgian. How will be "Georgian scripts" in plural form in Latin? Jaqeli (disputatio) 14:42, 5 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Usor:Helveticus montanus What does "Abecadaria" mean? Jaqeli (disputatio) 15:49, 5 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :scripts if the plural form (nominative) of abecedarium because you explained me there are more than ones --Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 15:58, 5 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Usor:Helveticus montanus Usor:Andrew Dalby Isn't "scripts" in Latin "scripturae" or something similar? "Abecedaria" seems to mean "alphabets" rather than "scripts". Jaqeli (disputatio) 16:12, 5 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::"Scriptura", like English "script", is a general term which includes writing systems of all kinds. What we are talking about here is very definitely an alphabet, "alphabetum" or "abecedarium".

text: :::The entry on Georgian in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (1992: vol 2 p. 58) says: "In O[ld] G[eorgian], three different alphabets were in use". Following that source, we can certainly say "tria alphabeta" or "tria abecedaria". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:03, 5 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Q
Disputatio:Lingua Talossana

message: The only source for this language seems to be the Talossan website, which asserts copyright. So we can't develop an article on it. (There may also be a question of notability ...) So I support the proposal to delete. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 5 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Languages can't be copyrighted, for the same reason facts can't be copyrighted. As for notability, the Talossan language is a very recognized conlang, it exists since 1980, has multiple articles on multiple Wikipedia editions, has more than 28,000 words, has its own official language regulator (Comità per l'Útzil del Glheþ (CÚG)), is supported by some major internationalization platforms (Crowdin, Transifex and Launchpad) and there is even a translation of The Hobbit in the making. Robin0van0der0vliet (disputatio) 17:32, 5 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Actually there are surprisingly many websites and books (though they seem to be the work of the relatively small community of speakers).  I see no harm in keeping the article, if it's going to develop into a real article.  If it remains a miniature non-stipula, naturally it will (eventually) get deleted like any other non-stipula.  But if there are enough Latin/Talossan bilinguals to produce a good article here, I say "bravo."  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:43, 5 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I've marked as non-stipula, which makes the page visible to people who check up on such things:  this may prod someone (anyone!) to flesh it out a bit.  I'm all in favor of keeping it provided that happens;  I don't have time or inclination myself to do that work now, though.  The formula shows a list of what the page needs to have, in particular rather more text.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:23, 8 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delenda? 

message: Why isn't it lingua Talossana ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:52, 5 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't sure how to Latinize the name of the language. If lingua Talossana is better feel free to move the article. Robin0van0der0vliet (disputatio) 22:22, 5 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

message: OK, there's enough to keep the article, I think. We won't say it's spoken in the Talossan kingdom: we have to write in the real world. We should, instead, say how many people speak it and where they live (e.g.: where their nearest post office is). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 31 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep
Disputatio:Regnum Hiberiae

message: Usor:Helveticus montanus Usor:Andrew Dalby The chronicle Historia Augusta says: ...sed nulli maiora quam Hiberorum, cui et elephantum et quinquagenariam cohortem... So I suggest we move it to "Hibero". What will be the correct form? "Regnum Hiberiae" or "Regnum Hiberum"? Jaqeli (disputatio) 06:15, 7 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Historia Augusta is not a very good source. My impression  is that the majority of sources do not have an H-, but we can look further if you like. You could follow up some of the sources listed in the external link I added to the page (Smith's dictionary): it is a very good guide to ancient references to place-names. I would be against a move until we have more evidence.

text: Is there a Latin source for "Regnum Kartliae"? If not, we will delete that name, because we do not invent names. However, we can add a transliteration in italics to the Georgian name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:01, 7 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Perhaps the best source here is Tacitus, 12.44.1, "modicum Hiberiae regnum", so "Regnum Hiberiae". Lewis and Short prefer the spelling with the H for both the Spanish and Georgian Iberias; the letter was maybe dropped after the classical period. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:03, 7 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Q
Disputatio:Mesrobes Mastosius

message: Necesse erit fontem externum citare: sine fonte pagina "non stipula" manet.
An nomen "Mesropus" Latine reperitur? Melius "Mesrop" fortasse? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:19, 7 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fons?
Disputatio:Palaus

message: Vox "Palaus" nimis absurdum est, deficiente testimonio nomenclaturae historicae. "Palau" in lingua catalauna idem est quod "palatium": titulum paginae deberet igitur esse "Palatium sardum" vel simile. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (disputatio) 10:40, 7 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fontem postulavi: videbimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:43, 7 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen paginae
Disputatio:Pipinus Gibbus

message: Nomen reperio "Pipinus", "Pippinus" aut "Pepinus", agnomen "gibbus". Alii fortasse aliter?
"Pippinus Gibbus" iam in pagina discretiva nostra Pippinus video. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:05, 7 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pipinus Gibbus" hic, quem fortasse iam vidisti. (Pono coniunctionem cum pipinna Martialis non esse. :) ) Lesgles (disputatio) 19:39, 7 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Mammalia

message: If Linnaeus really used mammaliorum (from *mammalius?) a specific source would be desirable. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:41, 7 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonne est genetivus pluralis mammalium ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:18, 7 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Formam "mammaliorum" tu, Iacobe, primus inseruisti, ut hic vides, sed fortasse lapsú momentaneo. Ego credebam "mammale -is -ia -ium", sed fontem non habeo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 8 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That was then; this is now! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:02, 8 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::No dispute about that! I was just curious to see where we got the word from. So I think that form can be eliminated and replaced with a link to the Systema Naturae, in which I immediately find "mammalibus" as well as "mammalia", so, luckily, the declension is evident. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 8 Maii 2015 (UTC)

text: : In [Systema naturae] I find gen. pl. mammalium (p. 15), abl. pl. mammalibus (p. 17), and abl. sing. mammali (p. 77 footnote). This all is 3rd declension (otherwise it should read mammaliorum, mammaliis and mammalio). As a consequence, nom. sing. is mammale. --Peter Buch (disputatio) 07:51, 21 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Exactly! If you find any mammaliorums, mammaliis, etc., elsewhere, please correct them! Lesgles (disputatio) 16:23, 21 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammaliorum
Disputatio:Fides

message: Haec removi --
replies: text: Ea etiam esse potest opinio quae in probatione non conditur.faith. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith (accessus 30 Augusti 2013).(patet 'fides' angl. 'faith' idem esse; patet "Dictionary.com" "Reliabilis Sourc." (aut simil. latinit. macaronic. ) esse)
 
 
Certe lexicon Anglicum de significatione verbi Latini fontem fidelem esse non praetendit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:50, 12 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad source, it's true
Disputatio:Boris Johnson

message: I replaced the two links to articles at en:wiki. Putting those links in article text is against our policy because they discourage the creation of articles here, whereas a redlink encourages it.
Note that it is possible to kill the two birds with one stone, and this is not against policy: you can use a "Creanda" template, in this way:
* {{Creanda|en|Balliol College, Oxford|Collegium Ballioli (Oxonia)|Collegio Ballioli}} gives the following result:
* 
i.e. it shows the redlink, encouraging article creation, and it also provides a link to the existing article in English, which may be useful to the future creator of the article.
I removed the following see-also
* [[Hillingdon (burgus)|Hillingdon: Uxbridge & South Ruislip]] 
because it is too complicated and would not be understood by someone unfamiliar with the subject. If we want to say that BJ is the MP for Uxbridge & South Ruislip, we have to say it in words: a see-also won't hack it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:52, 15 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Dude, tuo ludo carissimo pro Collegio Balliolensi ludebat, nostramque linguam amatissimam in Australia docebat! :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:00, 23 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita vero! Fortasse enim nunc hunc meremus ducem magnificentissimum... Exemplo sequente, mox egomet ministerium forsitan suscipiam: etiamsi advenus, sum quoque baculum ipsius arboris (NON!)--Xaverius 15:44, 23 Iulii 2019 (UTC)

text: (Condonate, si licet, meum parvululm iocum!)--Xaverius 15:45, 23 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "ob peccata plebis, nunc primarius minister"