User talk:Caeciliusinhorto/Archive 3

Deletion of paragraph at Gaius Sallustius Passienus Crispus
You deleted a paragraph from the body, saying "none of this paragraph is about Passienus". However, it was describing what happened to Passienus' wife and stepson in the sequence of events that included Agrippina's betrayal of Passienus and his death, and which ended with his wife becoming Roman empress and his stepson murdering both her and Passienus' first wife... this seems reasonably related to Passienus. It describes how he fits into one of the most scandalous careers in Roman history. And it is not excessively long or detailed, as it all fits in one paragraph. I think that it should be restored to the article, and therefore urge you to reconsider its deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about it, so feel free to restore if you think it valuable, but I don't think it really says anything about how Passienus "fits into one of the most scandalous careers in Roman history" - he was dead by the time that any of this happened! If people want to know more about Agrippina the Younger, we have a whole article on her that they can read.  At any rate, if it  restored I am not convinced that framing these events as all being brought about by Agrippina's villainy is a neutral reflection of modern scholarship: Messalina's downfall was brought about by her own colossal stupidity in marrying her lover when her husband, the emperor, was out of Rome; there was no other way that particular decision could possibly have ended! (And I would still be inclined to trim the section to only the events directly connected to Passienus' two former wives, Agrippina and Domitia; Messalina's attempts to have Nero murdered and his own subsequent murder of Britannicus strike me as even more tenuously related than the rest.)  Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll take that into account before restoring the paragraph. I probably meant to write "sequence of events" rather than "careers" above, but wavered over whether I was describing Agrippina or the events... however, if I recall my source materials correctly, they suggested the connection between the events, and I do see a great deal of relevance—a brief discussion here seems appropriate, although I take your point about Messalina—though I also seem to recall that the secondary sources appeared to connect her actions with Agrippina's machinations.  I may want to review them and see whether I misinterpreted them, or if they still make sense—I've read over the original account a few times in the past, but should do so again.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The Core Contest winners announced
The winners of the 2023 The Core Contest are announced 🎉. We had an amazing set of improvements this year, and the judges (, and ) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners.


 * First place goes to for improving  The Holocaust; very core, highly relevant; their work on bringing geographical balance to the article puts the topic in a whole different light. We also commend improvements to sourcing and prose
 * A close second place goes to for improving Education from an unstructured jumble into a well-sourced piece of instruction
 * Third prize goes to for improving  Donatello, a near five-fold expansion with great sourcing and fantastic imagery
 * A tie for fourth place goes to for improving Crime, for a strong improvement in sourcing
 * A tie for fifth place goes to for International law, improved by converting contextless listicles into a proper sourced prose

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

AlisonW case request accepted
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Lucius Calpurnius Piso (praetor)
Hello, Caeciliusinhorto,

I just wanted to remind you that whenever you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.), it is considered best practice to post a notification on the talk page for the page creator. This is done most easily when you use Twinkle, and editing tool, to tag pages for deletion or for any problems they contain that need to be fixed. Twinkle is a very useful tool for all editors to try out and it can do everything from post Welcome messages to set up an AFD discussion or report a vandal to a noticeboard. Basically, it remembers all of those templates so that you do not have to memorize them or spend time trying to find the right one. Best of all, once you set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator", then Twinkle will post those talk page notices on your behalf. It's very convenient to use so I encourage you to try it out. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks – I do in fact have Twinkle installed, but I nominate things for deletion so rarely I always forget to use it! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for the AlisonW case
The proposed decision for the AlisonW case has been posted. Statements regarding the proposed decision are welcome at the talk page. Please note that comments must be made in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 15:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed
The arbitration case Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:


 * For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review
If you have a moment, would you be willing to cast an eye on the peer review for Temple of Apollo Palatinus? I think it would really benefit from some classicist input: in particular, there's a lot of background as to Augustus' building programme and relationship with Apollo, and I'm keen to make sure I've struck the right balance between keeping the focus on the subject and giving enough explanation of the background. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * of course – I will try to cast an eye over it this weekend. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Sappho
Hi Caeciliusinhorto, I hope you're well. You may recall that I contributed a music section to the article on Sappho late last year. I wondered if you had any plans to bring the article to FA? –  Aza24  (talk)   06:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi – good to hear from you! I would certainly like to get Sappho up to FA, but I must admit I've always been intimidated by criterion 1c, which requires a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Camillo Neri's bibliography for his 2022 critical edition of Sappho runs to 70 pages in fairly small print; there's a lot of relevant literature to survey!
 * I know the article's in pretty good shape though – maybe the approach is to put it through PR and ask a bunch of the FA regulars to be super critical of it and see what they think? And I know you're a music/arts/literature kind of person – if you are interested in getting Sappho up to FA I'd be delighted to collaborate with someone. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too worried about 1c. Many articles on figures with even broader literature have gotten through FA certainly without every major source (Jesus, Augustus, Cleopatra, the Middle Ages etc.). I think its purpose is too encourage full coverage of every important aspect—i.e. emphasis on the "representative" more than the "thorough". Using the more recent important publications is also key here—I've done quite a few source reviews at FAC, and this often the important checkbox for such big topics.
 * I'd be happy to collaborate, but would have to insist you take the lead. Your approach with asking others to comment on a PR sounds fine to me.  Aza24  (talk)   05:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've expanded the discussion of Sappho's poetics slightly and opened a peer review; we shall see what people think. If I get difficult questions about music history I may have to bother you for assistance! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll endeavor to follow along with the process closely! WP's coverage of Ancient Greek music is generally messy and lacking (esp. compared to poetry, history and philosophy coverage), so getting this article to FA would be a huge step there as well.
 * I would recommend reaching out to specific editors who may be knowledgable on the subject. PR is rather random on if people will stumble across the article and leave comments. UndercoverClassicist, P Aculeius and Cplakidas may all be people to reach out to (was going to recommend you reach out on WiG, but see you already did!) It may be worth posting on Katolophyromai's talk page. Though he's not active anymore, I'd say there's a good chance he'll see it and offer some advice.
 * If you're worried about citation thoroughness, I wonder how much you've looked at Yatromanolakis's bibliography? You should have access to it through the WP library. It might be an easier way to get a sense of where the article stands, source coverage-wise, than Neri's mammoth survey :)  Aza24  (talk)   21:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * How are you feeling about Sappho at the moment Caeciliusinhorto?  Aza24  (talk)   01:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Casio watch - Zapatists
I understand your point of removing the phrase about the zapatist's use of the watch, but other sources that talk about this watch also mention the zapatists, like this one by Vice Why Terrorists Love Casio's Iconic F-91W Watch. Maybe the lead could contain a passing mention to it, without referring to Marcos in particular. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article.  the Zapatista connection could be mentioned in the body, but any mention in the lead looks like it would be wildly undue to me. The vice article you mention has a single throwaway line discussing Zapatistas, along with various other groups associated with the watch - but the article isn't mentioning the fact that DJs and creatives wear it! And I'm really not convinced that the Zapatista connection is important enough to even mention in the body unless there's more compelling sources. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the fact it is mentioned along with al-Qaeda, in this article and others, would make it as much relevant as what is already mentioned in the lead. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think that it is in fact worthy of inclusion, you should make that case on Talk:Casio F-91W Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon October 2023 - Around the World in 31 Days
 Hello :

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a  month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, 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!

Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Silver certificate (United States)
At the time I left the "Clarify" tag, the word was "Current"! Another editor addressed the issue but left the tag. Pam D  16:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

German influence on the Soviet space program
Thank you for your comments on the talk page. Note that SchmiAlf has replied, would appreciate if you had any response to his reply. Ilenart626 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

BLPN
Regarding the death notice you replied to, it rang an alarm bell with me so I've redacted the section and emailed Trust and Safety. However, you didn't go anything wrong! Fences &amp;  Windows  11:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Undefined sfn reference in Agnodice
Hi, in this edit to Agnodice you introduced however no such work is listed. This means that nobody can look up the reference, and adds the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing sorce that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks – I was adding it but got pulled away from my computer. Fixed now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Venus de Milo
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Venus de Milo 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 Ppt91 -- Ppt91 (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Thanks : a merry Christmas to you too! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for a GA review
Hi, I came across your page while looking at the Aineta aryballos GA review. I must say, I am amazed at the level of edits you have made. Personally I've been very interested in Greek & Roman topics, archaeology in particular, but never had access to the required resources (can't access TWL too). Now when I've introduced myself, could I please request you to consider doing a GA review for the article on Rajiv Malhotra which I nominated? I believe it is GA worthy, perhaps even FA worthy, with a great level of detail. It was rated C a long time ago, hasn't been reassessed and many good edits have been made since then. If you don't have the time, that is understandable too. I also asked the user UndercoverClassicist but received no response. Thanks in advance. Matarisvan (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi – I'm afraid Rajiv Malhotra is completely outside my area of expertise and interest. Good luck! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's no problem. Thanks for replying. Do you know anyone who would be interested in doing the GA review? If not, I still appreciate that you took time out to respond Matarisvan (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Afraid not – it looks like Wikipedia talk: WikiProject India is reasonably active so you might try posting there Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't think they would like to review this particular article. I would have to try with a Philosophy or religion editor. Thanks for the help anyway. Matarisvan (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!


P Aculeius (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

P Aculeius (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, and the same to you! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

GAR
FYI, this script semi-automates the setting up of a GA reassessment, although you subsequently have to notify the involved WikiProjects manually. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks – I did see that script when reading the instructions, but I misread the notification caveat as saying that you have to do the notifications manually, at which point I didn't think there was any point using the script at all; I see that it would have saved me a couple of manual notifications, so maybe it is worth using after all... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It also helps in avoiding errors—there was a little one I fixed on the article talk page. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sappho: A New Translation
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sappho: A New Translation 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) 18:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Diocletian
Hi, sorry about my edits to the above. On reading the article, I noticed that there was a mix of Br & AM English. As the article uses dmy dates, I assumed that Br English was more correct and also it is not an American-related article. Again, sorry. Best Regards Denisarona (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * no problem. In future it would be helpful to explain this in an edit summary - I couldn't work out from your edits what the point was. Looking again at the article, I've found and fixed a few Briticisms - did you notice any more? (Re DMY dates, as far as I can tell there is nothing in MOS:VARS which actually says that the date variety and the English variety should match, bizarrely, so as far as I can see it's totally legitimate to have AmEng spelling but DMY dates) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, sorry for my mistake. With regard to the dmy dates, the alternative mdy dates is definitely American use and that is why I made the changes. In Europe, the normal use is dmy dates. Regards Denisarona (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Alcaeus
Do you think Alcaeus should redirect to Alcaeus of Mytilene with a hatnote? The other three (Alcaeus (comic poet), Alcaeus of Messene, Alcaeus and Philiscus) seem sparsely notable. Thinking about starting a move request  Aza24  (talk)   19:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I think that Alcaeus of Mytilene is the clear primary topic and should be at Alcaeus, with the disambiguation page at Alcaeus (disambiguation); failing that I would take Alcaeus as a redirect to Alcaeus of Mytilene.
 * I made a move request to this effect many years ago but it got no traction. I continue to think that my proposal there was correct: Alcaeus is clearly the common name for Alcaeus of Mytilene, and Alcaeus of Mytilene is clearly the primary topic for Alcaeus. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Will ponder further...  Aza24  (talk)   03:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Your photos of Venus de Milo's hand and foot
Hi! Can you please add to the description of this your pictures the location. Are items in Louvre? Or other place? Permanent exhibition or temporary? What exactly the museum labels said? Thanks! -- Shakko (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi ! They are permanently exhibited in the Louvre, in the room with the Venus de Milo – they've been there since the 2010 reinstallation of the Venus. I've added links on commons to the online catalogue entries on the Louvre's website for the objects.  I'm afraid the computer which has the images of the museum labels on, if I took such photos (I normally do, but I might not have bothered as I was specifically looking to photograph these are I knew I would remember exactly what they were!) is currently in storage, so it's unlikely I'd be able to check what the labels say before June Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you! the location is very important for the authenticity, off course. So it isnt' hypothesis or copy. Perfect. Didn't they show the piece of hand between shoulder and elbow, that is in this picture? I've seen the photo of this marble part long time ago, but can't find now. --Shakko (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a piece of arm on display – the catalogue entry for that is here. I didn't get a good photo of it unfortunately, but it's in the same case. I think it's actually only the lower part of the bicep, though – de Clarac's drawing shows the entire upper arm restored, but I don't think the fragment on display is big enough for that. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PenmanWarrior (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ngrams
N-grams for Horn Dance and Addobt Bromley Horn Dance, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Signups open for The Core Contest 2024
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is GB£300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. –  Aza24  (talk)   02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Joan Crawford as Venus de Milo
Accidentally came across a reference to this in a review in the TLS and immediately thought of you. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks – what a fascinating article.  It's hard to imagine a celebrity magazine today running such a feature!  Their numbers are also just completely bizarre. I'd have to check Pasquier when I get home for the chest and hip measurements, but the supposed height of 5'4" for the Venus de Milo is just completely divorced from reality – she's fifteen inches taller than they claim.  I also have no idea how they calculated her weight – clearly the actual marble statue does not weigh 135 lbs Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha, I see that over the last couple of months that photo has worked its insidious magic on you, so much so that it finally made its way into the article. When I saw the edit summary on my watchlist, I knew without looking that "20th-century reception of the statue" must be code for Joan Crawford. Good edit! – Choliamb (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's just such a good image! (And most of the 20th Century artistic reception is still in copyright, so harder to justify using) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)