Intro by bottevilleEdit

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. Over the years there have been quite a few, but most of my discussion is on the article talk page or the commons category talk page. I work on both articles and commons categories, linking the two whenever I can. My philosophy is, the commons category should be an adjunct to the article, whenever that is possible and practical, and you should be able to get from a commons category to the most relevant article if any.

I will be taking a vacation from Wikipedia from the middle of March to sometime in May or June. I will not be available for that time. From here, as I do not know what situations may arise, I cannot make any suggestions concerning them. You're on your own.Botteville (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Return of Botteville. I'm coming back now. Meanwhile I've had a chance to think over my approach to WP. I think I've been taking on too much. So much needs to be done that one wants to skim over groups of articles. This leads to substandard work. WP standards are actually high. Most of the articles are not up to them. They are easy to improve, but the improvements may not be up to standard either. As soon as someone else takes an interest in the article, you get hung up on that article Better to pick a few articles and work on them. I've made lots of promises but the time to live up to them escapes me. I'm going to be more on art and archaeology for a while. I will respond to special requests if any are made.

I've given some thought to the clash of the editors also. I suppose I can clash just as hard as most people. That's not the point of WP, however. If I don't follow down every conflict it is because I do not wish to lose your work or your interest. After all, I can't write WP myself. It will just have to come out as it comes out.

There is one more serious problem, to which I think I may have found a solution. Some of you are very aggressive. You are not going to permit any tags or questions. I put a tag on, you tske it off. I revert it, you revert that. You will not permit any questioning. You will take no suggestions. Strictly speaking, you can't do that! Before you can remove the tags you have to demonstrate that they have been answered. If I request a reference, you need a reference. Well. I can either get into a big edit war with you and run the gauntlet of the three reversions or I can just let you have your way, even though mistaken. From my over 10 years experience here I can make a few observations. First, aggression is a short-term solution. There are so many people looking at these articles that the mistaken view over which you were willing to go to edit war will sooner or later bite the dust. So the article portraying the Trojans as Phrygians (proto-Armenians) can now no longer be found. Second, there is usually something positive to be said for the view you are defending. It just is not the only or even the predominate view. I think now, if you are zealous to defend the integrity of the article so much so that you will fight not to allow any other viewa, then there is no choice but to start another article expressing the excluded view or views. After all a big subject probably is best served by a bigger number of articles.

That't all I have to say at the moment. Later.Botteville (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Santa María (ship), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Tuscan marshesEdit

Hey, Botteville! I see you made major contributions to the article Pontine Marshes. I am working on an article about an Italian bean at User:Valereee/Sorana bean (Fagiolo di Sorana) and several sources have mentioned something about the Medicis etc. "reclaiming lands" as explaining why the soil along the riverbank in this little village in a valley at the base of the Appennines is sandy and gravelly (which is why it's good for the growing of beans). My best guesses of what to google is not turning anything up that explains what this land reclamation was and why it would make the soil in this valley sandy and gravelly in enough detail that I feel I can use it. Can you offer me a clue about what I'm looking for? Thanks for any assistance! --valereee (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is time for geology 101. But first, I remember working on the Pontine marshes, and I did intend to get to the Tuscan marshes, which are pretty much an extension of the Pontine north of Rome, but I do not believe I ever did. Neither of those are relevant, however. We are talking about the Sorana Bean, right? If we look at Sorana Tuscany in Pistoia we see a typical Etruscan walled city site on top of a steep hill. The whole country is steep hills laced with upland streams. You would expect to find plots of sand and gravel on the terraces of these streams, as water pretty much dissolves all the topsoil. I know, Quabbin Reservoir in Massachusetts was once a valley of fertile farms but the flooded valley has nothing but a bottom of sand and gravel.To go on, I had no trouble finding the Sorana Bean on the Internet. But, I suppose you want encyclopedic references. On whatever key words you use on the regular Internet, do an advanced search specifying .pdf. Most articles are there. Try Google Scholar also. Under "More" is Google Books. Just remove the pdf specification and search there. Well good hunting on the bean. Wikipedia provides what other encyclopedias do not, a full range of muti-cultural articles. So, it is probably worth doing. I got to go now.Botteville (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! That gives me a lot to use to search! --valereee (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Panteón de Marinos Ilustres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rotunda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

My goodness, I am flabbergasted by so many and so well-qualified candidates. I would scarcely know where to begin. Maybe I am over-impressed, maybe not. In order to find out I would have to undertake extensive investigation. That has never been my bag. I've always been a content man. So, as far as coming up with a reasoned vote before the deadline, I think I will have to defer. It seems to me, one can either run the thing or contribute to the thing, but it is pretty tough to do both on a part-time basis. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit


Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, Martin, I am primarily a content man. I get involved in code in connection with article design. You saw me on a documentation page out of despair for the deficit of commentarial explanation. I will give it some thought.Botteville (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Panteón de Marinos Ilustres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rotunda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020Edit

  Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Battle of Trafalgar‎ that didn't seem very civil, please could you remove it. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Toddy1 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If apologies are due I will be glad to make them. What exactly did you find uncivil?Botteville (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
To the public: user Monroe stepped in as arbiter of this issue and the article, which id Battle of Trafalgar. So, there is not need to go further with it here.Botteville (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)