User talk:Botteville

Intro by botteville

I just cleared the deck for action, to use a naval term from the days of sail (wonderful days). Now I can more easily see your comments, if you have any. and you can more easily find my replies, if any. Chances are, I won't be replying. Nothing personal, and nothing to do with the merits or demerits of your argument. We just don't have the space to conduct arguments. You're taking responsibiity for your inputs and we're exercising the "presumption of good faith." Whether it is or is not is your burden. I don't keep your old talk around for long so you probably won't be seeing much here. Regard it as an erasable blackboard.Botteville (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary retirement

Hello. Due to circumstances that have nothing to do with WP or any article or person on it I am taking a break here. If I was involved in any discussion recently, don't count on my being gone quite yet. I may be back, probably not for months, possibly not. It is uncertain. Whether we live in some New Mexican Garden of Eden or in the cold, blustery, working class cities of the north, we all share in the experience of uncertainty. Nothing is certain but the uncertain. So, you have it good for a while without me on. Only for a while. I will check for messages from time to time. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, I can come back now on a limited basis. I'm back. It was really worth taking a break for a while. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. After looking at the encyclopedia from the outside I can see how valuable it really is. You end up starting there whether you plan to do so or not. One cannot deprecate the professionals, who are the ultimate word on this or that topic and made a huge committment to do that. But, in between there has to be something, and I guess we're it. I know the bickering is often hard to take. But, it seems to me the result is finally worth it. Glad to be back. I have decided to change my technique, as sometimes I am advised to do. Instead of fighting it through sentence by sentence I will drop in finished blocks. So, you will see less of me day to day. Ciao. See you around.Botteville (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Houses in Rowley, Massachusetts has been nominated for merging

Category:Houses in Rowley, Massachusetts has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 18:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed that one. Left reply on UP.Botteville (talk) 19:42, 23 March 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Etruscan religion

Hi, just an FYI that I just tagged you into a talk-page discussion initiated by a student editor. I'm sure any insight or encouragement you have to offer there would be much appreciated! Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Botteville, sorry to hear about your recent health issues! I saw your reply on Brianda's talk page, and I guess I was a little confused by the tone? It seems to be based on a misreading of my reply... for example, "You're accusing me of copying a published text and putting it in WP under my own name," which I certainly didn't write and didn't intend to imply. My apologies if I did! It seems like the confusion might be based on my use of the word "pull", which I was using idiomatically to refer to the idea rather than the literal words. I was hoping that you might have some useful words for a student editor doing exactly what you do as an experienced editor (researching a topic/idea and summarizing it in a Wikipedia article); my sincere apologies for being so presumptuous! Suriname0 (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was based on "pull." I never pull anything unless an attributed quote. What would be in that for me? I'm way past the stage of trying to look good. Nobody on WP ever looks good to anyone else. I just like to do this research for recreation. There are plenty of investigators on WP and they all come on the same way, to trick you into some sort of admission. I got nothing to admit. In the business, if you want to steal someone's writing you make it look as though they are stealing from you. You know, if you want to strike an enemy, you must do it first, and you must make it look as though he did it to you. I think we've see plenty of that in the media lately. We don't need any more. But I accept your explanation and apology. Why should I not? If you care enough to apologize you are no doubt sincere. There is a lot of insincerity on here but these are almost always wreckers, either of the work of individuals (the psychotic wreckers) or of Wikipedia in general (the political wreckers) but so far you don't seem to be one of those. As to your request for advice, I can only re-assert what I already said even though you may not like it. You mention consulting a few books on the Etruscans. When I was working on Etruscans I consulted at least a dozen books, lots of articles, resorting to Interlibrary loans on some. And on the Internet there are now vast resources; for example, Hesperia (journal) has a vast archive of back issues, all excellent articles. You need to get the right journals. In case you aren't familiar with the Wikimedia LIBRARY function you should be. There is absolutely no substitute for scholarship either in the halls of Academia or out of them. To get results, do the work. As for the Etruscans, like the Romans and Greeks, never doing anything without consulting the gods, gosh, I should have put my ref in. It is such a standard dictum I hardly felt it necessary to bother (a mistake no doubt). What do you think the oracle business was all about? If anyone dared to move without the omens he was setting himself up for disaster. Alexander was perhaps the most superstitious of all. He went way out of his way to get omens. Once a priestess refused him in the middle of the Sahara and he pressed her so hard she said finally, Oh, you are irresistable, and he took that as the omen and prediction of his victories. This is all very well known. If your student is not at that level he needs to get at that level so that he too can exercise judgement on what to say. I don't want to seem like the bad guy, but I refuse to do the work for him/her in his own interest. That is what is needed. Well this has been an interesting discussion. I got to get on to some problems I am working on. Botteville (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Adrabaecampi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adrabaecampi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrabaecampi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find ay clear way to participate in that discussion. It seemd like a lot of unfamiliar code to me. So here it is. Please read this:

[ https://www.jassa.org/?p=11500 In Nomine Jassa]

The "article" is a wiktionary ref no doubt. We can't have articles on single references. However it should be upgraded to the point where it covers the main issue: what tribe is it really? It appears as though Adrae is really Odrae, the tribe that resides in the country along the Oder in territory that will become Poland. An expanded article might stay an article then. Alternatively I suggest an item in a list article listing Germanic tribes. If you feel a real need to dispose of it, then go ahead, Wiktionaryize it. At some point someone covering these tribal names will probably want to bring it back. Best I can do. Ciao. Botteville (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sibiricum

The article Sibiricum has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Specific epithets are never used alone and as WP:partial title matches do not warrant disambiguation pages.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Paul_012 (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though you are handling this page as part of a project. In that case you know more than I. Just in general I know we cannot disambiguate every species name. There are probably millions.Beyond that I don't have anything significat to say. I'm following your lead.~~~~ Botteville (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]