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]

Archives (Index)
1 2 3