User talk:Davers

Thank you very much for your message - it's great to know occasionally that people appreciate what I do - or try to, anyway. I've just added in a few more things to the Milone, and now I really think its finished! Congratulations - it's a fantastic article, and you wrote nearly all of it. I've done some work as well with the Mozart Requiem; it's currently being peer reviewed, and now I think that its ready for good article status. All the best, and I hope your wikicareer is long and successful. Cheers, Moreschi 10:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a few WikiProjects that you might be interested in: Project Opera (to which I belong), Project Classical music, and Project Composers - provided, of course, that you don't belong to them already! Cheers, Moreschi 17:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the Pro Milone for good article status. It fully deserves it. (Just so you know). Cheers, Moreschi 12:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have referenced the Pro Milone, do you wish me to renominate it for GA status? Best, Moreschi 15:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I'm new to submitting to Wikipedia so I'm not sure how all this stuff works (I'm not even sure if this is the best way to reply to you). Feel free to nominate it for GA status, if you think it worthy. I've certainly finished adding to it now - like I said before I'm not convinced it needed references in the first place. I was going to add some Quintillian stuff but it's hardly apposite unless you're going into in-depth discussion of the rhetoric values of the speech. This article is just an overview of the pro Milone, not a case study. Anyway. Thanks a lot for supporting my first article, as well as your worthy edits. Davers 14:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded on the talk page, sorry for taking so long.--SomeStranger^(t) 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! The Pro Milone has now been listed as a good article.

Now that that's over, shall we have a go at the Pro Caelio? I really don't think that the current entry is adequate, and you always know an article's in trouble when its talk page is almost as long as the article itself. Cheers, Moreschi 09:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your nomination and the good wishes. I think it's a good article, despite some of the rather odd editing it received from some users (check my last comments in the discussion page). I'm still laughing slightly at the correction of 'Clodius' to 'Clodious'. Maybe I'm easily amused.

I studied the Pro Caelio at college, my knowledge of it is far less in-depth than that of the Milone, but I agree that the article could do with some expansion. the Caelio is the one with all the prosopopoeia, yes? And all the 'O infelix, O sceleste' stuff? I think it's all coming back to me. I'll see what I can do if I can find the time (and maybe some of my notes!). Don't let me stop you from making a start, though.

Thanks again for your help with the Milone. Definitely worthy of GA status now in my mind. Davers 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Davers, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Nott logo.gif) was found at the following location: User:Davers. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, piss off. Davers 13:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Davers:

I wandered into your Pro Milone article today, following a link that Moreschi left. The diversity within Wikipedia frequently amazes me.

I have a question. ( I will mention that Latin is a closed book to me, though that may be obvious from my question. )

The article lead has: "The speech was written by Cicero in 52 BC." In October this was changed to written and delivered; this was reverted with the comment: "Speech was not delivered." (Reverted by an IPaddress with no other editing history.)

Further on I read: "On the 5th and final day, Cicero delivered the Pro Milone in the hope of reversing the damning evidence accrued over the previous days."

Was the speech actually spoken? I expect the answer is "Of course it was." However, the exchange about the lead has me wondering.

Thank you and best wishes, Wanderer57 16:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your user talk. You're welcome. Davers 13:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm writing up a motion to the UoN SU Council to promote the use and publication of media under free licences. As a UoN student/alumnus, I was wondering if you'd like to give your input.

Please comment at commons:Commons:Village pump#Motion to University of Nottingham Students' Union Council.

-mattbuck (Talk) 22:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]