User talk:Caeciliusinhorto

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3;

Your GA nomination of Abbots Bromley Horn Dance

The article Abbots Bromley Horn Dance you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Abbots Bromley Horn Dance for comments about the article, and Talk:Abbots Bromley Horn Dance/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Hi Caecilius. Hope all is well in the hortus. When you have a spare moment, I wonder if you could take a look at Erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum. The principal editor is a frequent uploader of Roman erotica to the Commons, and much of the Wikipedia article in its current form consists of long scrolling galleries of their favorite images. Many of the images have nothing to do with Pompeii or Herculaneum: in fact, the heading of one of the largest galleries is "Erotic art outside Pompeii and Herculaneum", which is accurate and charmingly guileless, but problematic in an article that is nominally about art from those two sites. There are other problems with the article as well, some of which have already been tagged (not by me). Just to be clear, I have no problem with the subject matter, which is both intrinsically interesting and worthy of a WP article, but in its current form there seems to me to be an obvious imbalance between the amount of encyclopedic content and the number of illustrations. If the user wants to create a general gallery of Roman erotica, they are welcome to do that at the Commons, which is a better place for it than here.

The reason I'm asking you to take a look rather than making some sweeping cuts myself is that over at the Commons I am currently involved in listing dozens of the editor's uploads for deletion as copyright violations, something that has been a repeated problem with them. That's how I came across the article, which I have never edited myself. Other than nominating files for deletion and placing notices on their Commons talk page, I have had no interactions with this editor, but to avoid giving the impression of harassment, I think it's best if I stick to the copyright issues at the Commons and ask someone else to evaluate the content issues, if there are any, here on WP. I picked you not entirely at random, partly because of your background editing classical articles, including some that broadly involve gender and sexuality, and partly because you have been here long enough that you have a much better sense than I do of what is and is not appropriate in a WP article on any topic.

Thanks, Crawdad Blues (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green's "Around the World in 31 Days" GA Editathon – October 2024

Hello Caeciliusinhorto:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) & Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xanthippe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a moment...

I'm idly thinking about bringing Anactoria to FAC at some point in the near future: if you wouldn't mind, I'd greatly appreciate your eyes on it and any comments you would have. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Foppoli

I got a request by email from the subject of Dominic Foppoli with more-or-less the usual that we've seen on-wiki; I offered to nominate the article for deletion. You did a lot of work on the article when it was at WP:BLPN, and might have an opinion on whether the notability suffices to override a request from the subject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Russ Woodroofe: I've commented in the deletion discussion, though somewhat equivocally! I think that on balance the policy-based argument to keep the article is stronger, though I struggle to care enough about Wikipedia's coverage of councillors for towns with a population of 25,000 to actually !vote to keep on that basis. If I can work up the enthusiasm I might try to give the §Accusations a bit of a kicking in to shape though... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm 100% with you on diffidence, though I wouldn't nominate if I didn't think there was a reasonable case for deletion. I somewhat expect the nomination to fail, but I've seen similar discussions go both ways. If kept, then I'm thinking that the contentious section could probably be covered with 4-5 crisply written paragraphs. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a crack at the worst parts, and the article is now 800 words shorter and hopefully the better for it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has an RfC

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers Poem

I hadn't read your article on the Brothers Poem before, but prompted by your mention of the Obbink papyrus in the FAC comments for Anactoria, I just did. It's excellent. Good to see that you gave the problems with the provenance a thorough airing. Choliamb (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Getting my head around the various provenance claims was ... fun, so I'm glad you think I succeeded in explaining what was going on there! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your comment on lifting my TBAN and especially for the links. I know you oppose lifting my ban citing NOTTHEM. I wrote a succinct (believe it or not) reply accepting responsibility for my actions and then explaining how mentioning them is unavoidable. But I've probably said enough. Nothing I do is perfect. That being said...

If you feel like it, and I completely understand why you might not, could you please take a second look at the content dispute that you linked to, which triggered my block request, and then in the block request itself where there is a comment with the phase "plain as day"? That observation should have been enough to resolve the issue, correct? It was the observation that had merit, and should have carried the most weight, and was the one with a fact that should have conclusively shut down further debate because it would be difficult to impossible to argue against? Yet... it continued and I was Tbanned.

These same involved admins are who initiated having my Sandbox draft deleted. It's the same admins who created the hellish fallout for all of us over them questioning whether a word is in a source because they were unwilling to look and their refusal to accept that is was. It's the same ones who then wanted me blocked under the guise of unreliable content and synthesis (directly due to their own inability to verify). And the same ones who (unfairly in my strong view) tossed me under a bus for letting them embarrass themselves with it so badly. They had no choice but try to muzzle me. What "they" were doing was what I now recognize as a form of WP:TE. I understand that you may or not reach that same conclusion. Please look right around here or just above it. Either way, I Thank you. Sincerely, WP:BANX Johnvr4 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban violation concern

Caeciliusinhorto (and Yamla),

Hello again. I wanted to circle back about the concerns that both of you had raised that several of my previous edits appeared to be in violation of applied topic bans. I am taking your concern seriously.

I know there is a forum for TBAN violation questions to be put forth as to whether a topic is or is not off limits for banned editors. I know I saw it the other day but frustratingly, I cannot seem to locate it now. Would you please direct me to it and then consider joining me there in raising the violation issues you've raised previously?

The responsibility to understand the scope of the Tban and of the scope of restricted topics is mine alone. Further, I am not the best editor to interpret where that line ends or to question it with edits close to a topic. Last, my opinion of whether something is in violation may not even count for anything at all. The opinion of an independent editor or administrator such as yourselves is what is relevant to that decision.

If I am in violation, and it looks like that is now likely, then I probably need to be punished for it, take my medicine, and accept any further sanction.

In addition, Because of sources I've used and topics I've edited in the past, some other topics I'd like to cover which I had never considered being close to the line, may be over it already (such as Smithsonian Bird studies, Rain, Hurricanes, Weather in general, Water in general, war veterans, scientists, motorcycles, and so on.) As was demonstrated in my recent request to lift the ban, any evidence of actual or potential violation is not going to be helpful for my WP editing future or for any hope of lifting the topic ban at some later point.

Please help me to properly report the concerns you've raised. My situation is bad enough already because I felt the ban was demonstratively unfair and I in fact did violate it previously. I certainly don't want to make it any worse by continuing to edit on projects I've already started in violation of any ban. I hope to get to a point where I can edit freely and would be allowed to raise the concern and demonstrate that the application of this Topic ban was applied unfairly.

This line in my sandbox appears to be in violation of my Topic ban: "Wurtsmith had recently returned to the U.S. after observing the atomic weapons testing of Operation Crossroads at Bikini Atoll."

I wasn't even thinking about the ban when I made the edit. Nevertheless, It looks like it's in violation. I think I am busted right there; I am confessing; and turning myself in.

A follow up question for you is, since I may not be able to edit further or finish a rough draft to completion, how might I turn over unfinished drafts to other editors who may be interested in completing, incorporating, or publishing portions of it?

Respectfully, Johnvr4 (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Myrtis of Anthedon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Myrtis of Anthedon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OCD² sv "gens"

Re your reply. I don't think its in there. See https://archive.org/details/oxfordclassicald0000nglh/page/462/mode/2up. Gens in OCD² says GENS (etymologically related to gignere) indicates a Roman clan, or a group of families linked together by a common name and their belief in a common ancestor. Nor is there an entry for nomen but maybe its elsewhere; the Internet Archive scans aren't OCR'd and therefore not searchable. Ifly6 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wp not earwig additions

Im wondering if you can include pages that are positives but aren’t shown cause earwig isn’t using a supported browser Pages is a reverse copy though this is what i can see. This is what earwig parses Here this is kind of a big issue •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberwolf: I've not seen this before, but yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I want to cover in the essay. Thanks for letting me know – I'll add something. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome! •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also earwig is still using internet explorer
Ie4 my script said but that was a weird thing •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archives (Index)
1 2 3