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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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 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:BANXJohnvr4 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The article Myrtis of Anthedon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Myrtis of Anthedon for comments about the article, and Talk:Myrtis of Anthedon/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) 21:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Andrew McManus, it is said that no source was provided for the claims. Below is the rephrased content with sources, albeit deemed too low quality (tabloid journalism)

In June 2024, McManus claims bankrupt mogul Mark Spillane's Cayman-Islands-based Audient Capital owes him $6million for the Pandemonium festival. McManus claims Audient Capital signed a $5million investment agreement in March 2023 to buy 25% of the shares in Apex Entertainment. McManus claims that Audient Capital defaulted and instead, referred McManus to BondIt Media Capital for a loan that carried a further $900,000 in interest. Additional costs are said to relate to legal fees, flights, and sponsorship activity. McManus says he has taken a loan against his property to cover his debts.^[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Composite8017 (talk • contribs)

@Composite8017: The Daily Mail is unreliable, and its use on Wikipedia has been deprecated since 2017. I don't know much about the Australian Daily Telegraph, but our article on the paper does not give much confidence in its reliability. Unlike the text which I removed, your version is at least about McManus, but without better sourcing I don't see a particularly compelling reason for including it in the article. That being said, I also couldn't care less about Andrew McManus and if you want to discuss the content of that page you would be better off doing so on Talk:Andrew McManus or a relevant noticeboard such as WP:BLPN. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to come to you directly about Jigme Singye Wangchuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – WP:BLPN is still semi-protected, otherwise I'd go back there. If you don't want to get involved (I understand: me neither!) please could you copy this to the noticeboard for me? I'd be very grateful.

In this edit Dorjinidup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is getting there about what we would want from an edit to a BLP: it's sourced (albeit still not neutrally) and is even maybe useful... but it's still highly biased language (down to using "He" with a capital letter for the pronoun) and again has overwritten what appears to be accurate, sourced, but negative, information. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied your comment over. I agree that the tone of Dorjinidup's edits are clearly not encyclopedic, but I have neither real interest nor knowledge about Bhutan, and frankly have neither the time nor the energy at the moment to involve myself seriously here. Not sure what to suggest if this doesn't get further traction on BLPN, though I will note that the semi-protection is currently set to expire in two days after which you will be able to edit it directly. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's cool – I too have no real interest or knowledge about Bhutan. The things you stumble upon in this place do broaden the mind!

Thank you so much for copying the above over to BLPN for me, it really is appreciated. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Sent: 18:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)) Ifly6 (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]