mic_none

User talk:Botteville Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Botteville

Intro by botteville[edit]

I just cleared the deck for action, to use a naval term from the days of sail (wonderful days). Now I can more easily see your comments, if you have any. and you can more easily find my replies, if any. Chances are, I won't be replying. Nothing personal, and nothing to do with the merits or demerits of your argument. We just don't have the space to conduct arguments. You're taking responsibiity for your inputs and we're exercising the "presumption of good faith." Whether it is or is not is your burden. I don't keep your old talk around for long so you probably won't be seeing much here. Regard it as an erasable blackboard.Botteville (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Akane Yamaguchi[edit]

Hello. Help copy edit. Thanks you. Pidke (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big job. Looks to be in pretty good shape. My current tasks need it more. Sorry. Luck.Botteville (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pidke is a sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it is a bigger job than I thought. I'm not an admin, don't know any Japanese, do not sockpuppet. I thought the article a bit longer than you would expect for the notability. I appreciate knowing. My interest ends there. Glad someone is on it. I'm basically a content/picture man with forays into formatting. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note[edit]

Your edit summary "teble" seems to be a mistake for "table". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.107.201 (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there, my friend. You look as though you are sincere. I thought your change to the intro was satisfactory. Nobody much cares about a misspelling in the edit summary, but being new you wouldn't know that. You wanted to come to my attention. Fine. I would have thanked you for your change but you don't have a user page (UP). I'm assuming you are not a sock puppet, an experienced user with an open UP posing as a novice. But you know, we're all novices on THIS encyclopedia. The pros, they have their own accesses to the publishing system, and that is fine with me. We need that. This, however, is a widespread valuable tool. Let me take this opportunity to say welcome. I would say, go slow at first until you get the hang of it. If you go too fast you might get more flak than you deem flyable and that would be a shame. The modus on these aticles is constant improvement. They start out unacceptable "stubs." Then we gradually polish them up. Some are very popular, others not touched for years. Suit yourself. I would suggest getting yourself a login and UP. You aren;t compelled to reveal your true identity. Anyone who tries can find me out. Secrecy is a double-edged sword, but you don't want to be judged by who you are personally. Only God does that right, but we mortals find it hard to resist. This in the most I have said in a long time. I have to stop. WP can't afford to waste space. Ciao, good luck. Don't get too discouraged too fast.Botteville (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aristagoras - extensive section on Thalassocracy[edit]

I recently read the complete Wikipedia article on Aristagoras. I was interested to find that a significant part of the article comprises a very thorough and well written essay on Thalassocracy and the academic debate regarding this subject.

After looking at the history of changes to the Aristagoras article, it seems that you are the primary author of this essay. I'm not in a position to comment on the accuracy or competence of the material that you have included. Rather, I do wonder why such a significant essay is included in the Aristagoras article rather than in the Wikipedia Thalassocracy article where it would be better suited and, frankly, help improve the quality of that particular article.  

While I understand why some information about thalassocracy is relevant to an article on Aristagoras, in my opinion a brief summary of the issues would be sufficient. I'm concerned that, as currently drafted, many readers interested in the life and times of Aristagoras would be daunted by the detail and content that you have included.  Unless you have contrary views, I would like to suggest that the bulk of your essay on thalassocracy be transferred to the Thalassocracy Wikipedia article with a summary of the points covered in your essay remaining in the Aristagoras article (with, of course, a link / reference to a fuller discussion on thalassocracy under the Thalassocracy Wikipedia article).  Your thoughts on my comments would be appreciated. Chewings72 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly. How can one resist such a charming critique? You may well be right, I don't know. I need to go back to Aristagoras, which I cannot now remember. But, it isn't fair not to go back, but just to leave you hanging. After all, am I in this or not? My first thoughts are that if true your critique is a common failing of WP and, to own up, a common failing of mine. We bring articles up from what they were previously. Thus an article is almost never "complete" or even adequate. But, to bring the article up often requires supplementary information not currently in WP, much more so in its early stages than now. The temptation is too great. It gets put in the article being worked on. We're doing better, I think. One solution is to work on bunches of articles at a time, which I am currently tending to do. And, don't forget that vital component of a modern article, the pictures in commons. One has to switch from commons to WP and back, be a sort of jack-of-all-trades. Another solution would be for YOU to do it, but of course I do not know your experience and inclination. WP can take a lot of time. I'm retired myself. Let me say this. When I reach a break point on my current effort I will re-read Aristagoras and thalassocracy. I know they may not be what we would all want. You can never read them as finished products. We never finish. I also invite you to take a hand in the content and organization of those articles if you are so inclined. We don't bite. The policy urges us to "be aggressive." Whatever you propose with honest intent will likely be looked on with favor. Now, we never tire of criticising each other, just like the big boys in academia, but don't get discouraged. Ciao. I will be there when I get there, not long I hope.Botteville (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Later. OK I read the article. I remember now. The ventures into theory were a development of trying to explain the theories, which were already mentioned, correctly. No one actually dared to move or remove them. But, your making this proposal now changes the situation. Therefore I placed you proposal and more on the article talk page of Aristagoras, which was my move. Now its your move again. If you decline to move I will go ahead, but in my time.Botteville (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Later. Looked at it again. You opened a real can of worms, my friend. Sometimes wrong things can get enshrined on WP and that seems to be the case here. Now I remember why I did not do more with it. But, what are senior editors for? I looked up the appropriate help and took the first step of proposing a new infobox for thalassocracy. We start by fixing that. I suppose you may have had in mind removal of my summary here on the grounds that it might be considered an "essay." I don't consider it an essay. If we don't succeed in correcting "thalassocracy" we still have to counter it here. I suppose I was choosing the end run instead of the frontal assault. Well, precedent is not a deity and I do not think it should be worshipped by us further. Yet one more time unto the breach.Botteville (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your detailed response to my suggestion. I certainly didn't intend to create a huge amount of work for you. I was hopeful that if it was agreed to move some of the material that you have under Aristagoras covering Thalassocracy to the Thalassocracy article, you could do that with a limited rewrite given the way you have already drafted the material. Similarly, if you do decide that you think you should move some of the material on Herodotus.
I agree with your strategy of seeking the views of others as you have done on the talk page for Aristagoras. I'm happy to wait for a couple of weeks to see what sort of response, if any, you get to your request for volunteers. If we end up being the only two interested in any review of the article including what should be included in the Aristagoras article and what could be usefully placed in other articles, I would be happy to have a first go at moving text and redrafting and then you can come in and make whatever changes you would like. Alternatively, if you would prefer to work with your own material given that you have been its author, that would be fine with me. Chewings72 (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is getting to sound like "after you, my dear alphonse" "no, no, after you my dear Gaston." I find there are two approaches to WP. One can concentrate on one particular aspect and go through a lot of articles, or try to improve a few articles significantly. Right now I'm in a mood to do some more detailed fixing. I find that if you do only a little fixing you get blamed for everything wrong with the article. People never read these things as unfinished. They always assume it is finished and want to find fault, pinning it on you. So I moved these articles into my more immediate list. But, if you want to wait we will wait. The only thing is, there are other things wrong as well that need to be fixed, peripheral things. So, I am getting a start there. Some editing. Some stuff is emotionally challenging. I had to tell whoever put the "type of government box" in Thalassocracy that it was the wrong box. It isn't a type of government. Well of course I have my ideas. There is a sister article tellurocracy. But you have expressed an interest. I had my shot previously. It is your turn, I'm not article greedy nor do I wish to be too possessive for the circumstances. So, I am going to stick to peripheral matters. I might also take a look at Tellurocracy. As far as reorg and rewrite, whatever you were going to do, I think I owe you a turn. I usually get the stubs or those not far from it. Thee is plenty of work on my current geoarchaeological agenda. I have had some bad luck in the past due to some of the things I have said that some young would-be authors have considered unkind. Every once is a while they jump me. After all if the teacher criticises your work would you not like to strike back rather than change? Changing is harder. "Striking back" is following one around on WP and deleting specifically changes by me although once I did have a coalition of British editors gang up on me for a "purple passage." So, it looked like your "essay" remark sugar-coated with some praise might be headed in that direction. But, we are either going to do this or not, so go ahead. I'm going back to my geographical efforts except for the peripheral stuff. It would be good to have a picture section in commons if I can get it togther.Botteville (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I start my response to your latest comments by saying that I have a great deal of sympathy for your concerns about how other Wikipedia editors react to changes in text that don’t fit in with their preconceived ideas of how an article should be written.  By nature, I prefer to be polite and courteous to others whether it's in the workplace or on Wikipedia.
As my use of the word “essay” does suggest, I do have in mind summarising the Thalassocracy material that you included in the Aristagoras article with the intention of then using your content to good effect in the article on Thalassocracy.  Since the door into Wikipedia is wide enough for both of us to go through together (😊), I'm willing to have a go at editing the Aristagoras and Thalassocracy articles over the coming days while you work on your ideas. I will try and get onto it next week as I have commitments over the next few days which will give me little time to focus on drafting in the short term. Regards Chewings72 (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're a true gentleman such as my academic compatriots decades ago urged me to be. It was never a two-way policy, however, so it struck me as hypocrisy. We see that a lot here because of the policy of accepting what the editors say at face value, even though it is quite obvious they are acting according to another more vindictive agenda. I believe you, however, due to your mature tone. But enough of this. Since you have expressed a desire to take over the editing of these articles in general I quit claim to them. I will not make peripheral changes, nor am I primarily working in that area now. I suggest since you have taken on the topic you get the sister article as well. Ciao, best of luck, enjoy yourself.Botteville (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 2022[edit]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]