User talk:Celuici

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:NotFromUtrecht)
Jump to: navigation, search

Zong massacre[edit]

Your article looks quite good. I would advise submitting it at GAN, as it should then proceed more smoothly through A-class and FA, if that's where you want to take it. As it currently stands, I'm not seeing a ton of issues that would cause a GA reviewer great concern; good luck in your future work on the article! dci | TALK 02:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice -- I'll probably leave it in PR for a bit longer, and then do as you suggest. Celuici (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ely and Littleport riots of 1816[edit]

Hi. Your removal of the Bombay Riots and the 2011 England riots in this recent edit seems fine on the surface. In the case of the Bombay Riots I agree with your reasoning. However, would you consider adding the 2011 England riots back? Our own article says that the rioters behaviour may be attributed to "racism, classism, and economic decline, as well as cultural factors like criminality, hooliganism, breakdown of social morality, and gang culture". The Ely and Littleport riots of 1816 were certainly caused by classism (whatever that really is) and economic decline as well as—according to contemporary accounts at least—criminality and breakdown of social morality. I thus see similarities and would therefore wish to keep the London riots in the see also section --Senra (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added the link back in, but I think more emphasis should be given to the contemporary context, such as the Spa Fields riots which happened a few months later, or the Gordon Riots and Peterloo massacre where lethal military intervention was also used. I should have raised this point in the peer review thread, but will add in some extra links to the "See also" section if you don't object. Celuici (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Go ahead. For the record I didn't object to your changes :) Just thought there was room to manoeuvre which indeed there was. Thank you --Senra (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Round Table (1817 book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Examiner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Thank you for your contributions to WP:Human rights related articles on Wikipedia, specifically Zong massacre. Much appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Zong massacre GA review[edit]

I've begun the Zong massacre GA review. This looks quite good to me; I only have a few minor suggestions, which you'll find at the review page. Thanks for your work on this quality article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments -- I agree with them all, and will try to get the article updated by the end of the week. Celuici (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Terrific, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment[edit]

Hey Celuici - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring Zong massacre to Good Article status. Keep up the good work! Khazar2 (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing this excellent article; it was a pleasure to read. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Slavery Convention 1840[edit]

What brilliant news. I have recently been talking to the BBC/PCF (et al) about the use of paintings on Wikipedia where I spoke of this painting and I used this painting in a talk I gave where the rights manager for the National Portrait Gallery was present. That talk has had 2,500 hits since I gave it - although maybe not just for the painting/convention. Here we have a painting which is the subject of dozens of notable articles. This painting belongs to everyone! The 1840 convention was also very illustrative of the time as it respected that Africans had human rights but it wasn't too sure about women! Do feel free to "steal" anything you can find in my user space. I hope you intend to use the clickable version of the painting as I put a lot of work into that and it inspired my work in that area. I have been meanng to create the convention/painting article for a long time but never had the time I thought it deserved. I'd be very interested in copy editing or working to assist. I have a "key" to the painting somewhere. All the best. Can you give me a link to the draft? Victuallers (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The Round Table[edit]

Well, I was pleasantly surprised to see that you have begun an article on The Round Table. I thought that you had abandoned Hazlitt. Not that I mean any negative criticism. I should be the last to complain. While I haven't given up on The Spirit of the Age, it has been going very slowly. I just don't have as much time as I would like.

Meanwhile, I see that you have made notable contributions in other areas, including achieving Good Article status for the Zong massacre. Congratulations! I haven't read that one yet, but I did enjoy reading the article on John Kimber, which I came across a while back.

As for The Round Table, I do have two or three things to correct there. I'll do that shortly. Nothing major, just the usual things that stand out to a second pair of eyes, especially if one is saturated with the subject matter. Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alan, good to hear from you again! My work on Hazlitt-related articles has indeed been rather slow, mostly as the result of real-life commitments and my ongoing attempt to get the Zong massacre article to FA class. My ultimate plan is to produce 2-3 paragraphs which overview the content of The Round Table, rather than emulate the much fuller treatment given in our articles on Characters of Shakespear's and The Spirit of the Age. I am slightly disappointed with the content of the Round Table article at present, as it doesn't provide much information that isn't included in the main article on Hazlitt. But in 2013 I'd like to create a basic article on each of Hazlitt's works, since that at least would provide a platform for further development in 2014 onwards. That's the long-term plan, if nobody does it first, at least! Celuici (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Celuici, likewise! Yes, I understand that about "real-life" commitments (though in my opinion Wikipedia, though not as important as family, friends, etc., can be as "real" as any project in life you're serious about). We do what we can and have the inclination for here. Also, if you're committed to taking the Zong-massacre article on to the next level, I can understand that that will leave you with little other Wikipedia time.
As for emulating the fuller treatment of Hazlitt's books in those articles, as I've said, I never expected anyone else necessarily to do that. Former Wikipedian Ottava Rima set the model that I've followed, but it fits my own inclusionist approach so I've found that way congenial.
Good idea, that about having a basic article on each of Hazlitt's works. (The major ones, anyway. And I can't right now envision the best way of handling those uncollected essays contributed to numerous periodicals over the years. "My First Acquaintance with Poets" is one of the best of those, and I think you'll agree that it would be nice to write more about that. A general article, "Hazlitt's Uncollected Essays"? I guess we can discuss that in the future if you want.) When I finish The Spirit of the Age (not that anything here is really ever entirely "finished"), if there are any works remaining that do not yet have stubs at least, I'll see if I can add a few myself.
Meanwhile, keep up the good work on the British slave trade. Oh, and, as for the current indequacy of The Round Table, I knew immediately that you would not have meant this as the article's final state and that you intended to add more (I think you said as much somewhere). Otherwise I might have mentioned that rather than just patching up a few things that jumped out at me. Regards, Alan W (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Op. Hardboiled[edit]

Hi, you recently left some comments at my FAC (thanks!). I think I've addressed all the points you raised, and wondered if you have the time to take another look and see whether there is anything else that needs doing. Cheers. --Errant (chat!) 13:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Congrats![edit]

Very nice to see the featured star go up on that one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is satisfying to get it up to FA class, especially when everyone in peer, GA and FA review was so helpful! Celuici (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations!!! — Cirt (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Slave Trade Act 1788, Celuici!

Wikipedia editor Barney the barney barney just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

reviewed

To reply, leave a comment on Barney the barney barney's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Possible typo in the Zong massacre article[edit]

Hi Celuici, Well, I had been meaning to read all of the "Zong massacre" article, and I finally got to it. I was not disappointed. A very good job! Now I know some essential facts about the history of the slave trade and Abolitionism of which I had been entirely ignorant, and I feel I understand the importance of those particular facts. I did notice what surely must be a typo, but since I don't have the two sources cited at hand, I can't check: "Mansfield declared that the jury: 'had no doubt (thought it shocks one very much)....'" (boldface mine). Regards, Alan W (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, glad you enjoyed the article! That is indeed a typo, which I've now fixed. Hope things are OK with you -- will have to read through what you've been doing in the Hazlittian sphere soon! Celuici (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Glad I caught the typo when I did, as I see now that the article is scheduled for a main-page appearance.What I've been doing is mostly adding to The Spirit of the Age a section at a time. As I've said before, maybe Rome wasn't built in a day, but if it had been my responsibility, it would still be under construction. At least I haven't abandoned the article, and it's coming along. Regards, Alan W (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Zong massacre[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Zong massacre know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 23, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 23, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

"The Slave Ship" by J. M. W. Turner

The Zong massacre was the killing of approximately 142 enslaved Africans by the crew of the slave ship Zong in the days following 29 November 1781. The Zong was owned by a Liverpool slave-trading syndicate that had taken out insurance on the lives of the slaves. When the ship ran low on water following navigational mistakes, the crew drowned some of the slaves in the sea. The owners of the Zong made a claim to their insurers for the loss of the slaves. When the insurers refused to pay, the resulting court cases held that in some circumstances the deliberate killing of slaves was legal, and that insurers could be required to pay for the slaves' deaths. The hearings brought the massacre to the attention of the anti-slavery campaigner Granville Sharp, who tried unsuccessfully to have the ship's crew prosecuted for murder. Reports of the massacre stimulated the nascent abolitionist movement and became a powerful symbol of the horrors of the Middle Passage of slaves to the New World. The massacre has also inspired several works of art and literature (including The Slave Ship by J. M. W. Turner, depicted). (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit reversion of Zong massacre[edit]

Hi, Celuici - thanks for an excellent article. Re your reversion of last edit, just wanted to suggest that the African Cargo play being based on the legal transcripts from the 1783 trial seems noteworthy - how about with added ref http://bbc.preview.somethinelse.com/africabeyond/events/200710/  ? Mchanges! (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by that link. It's just a listings site, providing no evidence that the performance has any enduring notability. I will also try to see what I can find, since it would be good to include something about the play if we can find the sources. Celuici (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

people and their rights
Thank you for quality articles around William Hazlitt, such as his father, and for pointing at human rights offended, in the slave trade and especially the Zong massacre, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 493rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Logan Rock may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Deserted Village may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft[edit]

Sorry about reverting your edit to Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft. It was an accident. Kaldari (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Deserted Village, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francis Wheatley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update[edit]

Hey Celuici. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Magdalene Sisters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brendan O'Neill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Act to Restrain Abuses of Players) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Act to Restrain Abuses of Players, Celuici!

Wikipedia editor Tritario just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A little short, but great job, none-the-less.

To reply, leave a comment on Tritario's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to What a piece of work is a man may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and admirable? in Action, how like an An-gel?<br />in apprehension, how like a God? ...''<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20131018001320/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

Hi Celuici,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Pisa Baptistry.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 5, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-04-05. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry[edit]

Hi Celuici, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)