User talk:Caeciliusinhorto - Wikipedia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Abbots Bromley Horn Dance 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) 13:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 11 September 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