User talk:Et in Arcadia 1

The queries raised by Et in Arcadia 1 appear to be mainly guesswork and inspired by jealousy or hatred. The language used clearly indicates that. The name Et in Arcadia 1 has no previous history and appears to have been created to disparage the subject. The name is a reference to Et in Arcadia ego, a 1637–38 painting by Classical painter Nicolas Poussin, Death in Paradise, and is commonly used as a terrorist death threat. I have taken the precaution of reporting this to the UK police. (message left sometime around 13th of March)

Hi @Silsoe, thanks for posting on my page, see also the response I put the Charles Read Talk page that this references. I'll copy paste it below:

Hi Silsoe - what an escalation!

Can you supply a single instance or link or any evidence at all where the classical Poussin painting is "commonly used as a terrorist death threat"? It's a very famous painting I chose as my username with its own page mentioning nothing of what you say re: being used by terrorists here. Also it's my username, so not sure how that is directed just at you (assuming you are affiliated with or the subject of the article). Simply editing this article with my username is a threat?

This is a very serious escalation in response to my saying below that I think parts of the article may have been written by the article's subject and appear promotional (with the latter of which users @Qflib @Bmm29 and @Nhinchey all seem to agree to different extents, with a similar discussion taking place after I sought help from more experienced Wikipedians who mostly agreed here, and then when some other editor I don't know also nominated this article for deletion, in which discussion I didn't even participate. I also in each of my messages invited anyone with any arguments to the contrary to please let me know and we can discuss, as people ended up doing.

In fact, you could have just told me or any other editor why you feel the new text was "fuelled by jealousy and hatred" and we could have cleaned up the wording together to make sure it is Wikipedia appropriate! The ideal here is something that is both neutral and that is not an advertisement or CV for the person, but also that anyone affiliated with the subject does not find demeaning. I think we can all agree on that. Instead you chose not to answer my call for feedback but go straight to this.

Reporting my edits to the UK police because of my username is simply bizarre, and indeed adds to the impression that all of this has a personal feel, rather than an encyclopaedic one, which was the very core of my initial concern. This isn't a case of a random Wikipedian neutrally discussing a subject. I am also convinced that any neutral third party reading the original article before my edits would agree it was promotional. Either way, as it stands, I'll stop editing this article as I have no desire to cause drama and it feels like I'm being intimidated to leave it alone. This will be my last edit on the Talk page too. I would invite an @admin to have a look at this page. Though I'm not sure if my moving on to / editing any other person's Wikipedia article would also constitute a threat to them in your eyes? Absurd.

I would further add here per illustration how I referred to the subject on the request for deletion page:

''The subject appears to be a (well-respected I'm sure) young academic with two books, who had a twitter post that received 1400 shares and which was mentioned in the Guardian. A human interest journalist at a local newspaper (20K circulation, which so far has not been seen as notable enough to merit its own wiki page) also wrote a piece in which he said the subject claims to be Cambridge's avatar economist of the 21st century, which was of course also proudly displayed on the original Wiki page as fact, without clearly stating the nature of the source. Next to that, the twitter post seems to be the main argument for relevance and featuring on Wikipedia. I am myself not sure if that merits to have a biography on Wikipedia, but also don't want to biased against the subject simply because he himself appears to have written the article, so wanted to check here if I should schedule the article for deletion. One thing I am certain, however, is that if not monitored this Wikipedia page will be continuously edited to restore the original grandiose claims.

I'm open to any suggestions (and hope this is the right place to post).''

I have no idea how the above in your view User:Silsoe is me having a vendetta or making a terroristic death threat against the subject (I assume yourself). Et in Arcadia 1 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I just added a reply to your question about deleting an article. (I also edited your section title to be the article you think might deserve deletion). I am pretty new to deletion procedures, but I'm pretty sure it qualifies for WP:PROD. I also deleted the "source" he (I'm just assuming Dr. Read wrote it himself) added that was to Twitter -- Twitter is NOT a reliable source. Thanks for cleaning up the encyclopedia! nhinchey (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks! Though apparently according to User:Silsoe (I assume Dr Read or someone affiliated with him), just editing his article with my username is a "terroristic death threat"? I'm out haha and will ignore that article or any living persons articles from now on. Et in Arcadia 1 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Nhinchey Et in Arcadia 1 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)